The empire of the Amorites

Se SEAEaEEEEE
.

a

THE EVENING POST MAGAZINE, NEW YORK, SATURDAY,

SEPTEMBER

13, 1919.

FOOD IS DEAR

cay
re

Cyrus C. Miller, Who Has Studied the Problem for Tucnty Years, Says That Unless Archaic Storage and_
Distribution Methods Are Modernized We Will Pay More and the Supply Will Be Short

By JEFFERSON WILLIAMSON

EW YORK, the “hungriest city’ i
the world, has the poorest facilities
for handling food of any great city
in the world.

Until those facilities are improved the
food situation here will go from bad to
worse, and it is about as bad now as it
well might. be.

The cost of living in New York -will re-
main at a high altitude here, regardless of
conditions elsewhere, until New York has
adequate and modern facilities for handling

_ the billion dollars’ worth of food that its six

million inhabitants consume each year.
To bring about the needed improvement
will entail the expenditure of millions of

_ dollars by the city.

Chief of these improvements should be
the construction of large terminal facilities
for food shipments. Such a terminal would
have to be based on the general coodrdina-
tion of transportation on all railroad lines
entering the city. *

Part and parcel of the terminal plan
should be the construction of «a modern
market—wholesale and retail, ae particu-
larly wholesale. =

Such, in substance, is the belief of Cyrus

—C. Miller, a New York lawyer, who has been

— country.

!

studying New York’s food problem for more
than twenty years and is considered an
authority on the subject, not only locally
but in its application to other cities. Mr.
Miller was chairman of Mayor Gaynecr’s
Market «Committee in 1913, and the report
that the committee compiled and put in
book form has become the ‘text book of
economists and students throughout tre
More recently he was Director of
Transportation and Distribution of the New
York State Food Commission during the

war, and served in the same: setae We ith

the Federal Food Board. —

Mr, Miller is worried about the food situ-
ation in New York and is certain that
something will have to be done soon to
bring relief. His expressed hope is tnat
when the job is tackled, the man who
tackles it will have vision enough to realize
the immensity of his task, and the driving
force to carry it to a successful conclusion.

ay. “We have grown like Topsy, without siv. Ae :
stein Se ae tha least - thought.
= our great. growth, &

to preparin i fi
said Mr. ~ Miller. —
“Now we find ourselves confronted by

a staggering problem, while we sit idly,
by and watch it grow and see it tight-. -

ening its grip on the long-suffering con-
sumer, It is a complicated problem, | It
will take great skill to work out its details,
and it will take time and money, barrels
and barrels of money. But if money is to
be saved, now is the time to start. ‘The
thing will have to be done sooner or later.

“Some day within the not distant future
New York is going to have ten million
people. Under the present system of doing
things it will be next to impossible to feed
them, except at a very high cost. You
think prices to-day are high. So they arc,
but they are not a marker to what they
will be unless modern scientific appliances
for storing and distributing foodstuffs are
established. And this problem of feeding
the New York of the near future ses
deeper than the mere_cost of ham and eg
and butter and bread and such things.

“No ‘matter how much the New Yorker
of the future is willing to pay, he will not
be able to get food as he gets it to-day.
He will have to take whatever he can g2t
and whatever quantity he can get. This,
of course, unless housing and distributing
of food is. put on an adequate and scientific
basis. This coming food scarcity will tend
to breed social unrest. There is a positive
menace in the situation as it now stands.
People generally are contented if they are
well fed, and they are more efficient. If
they are not well fed they are, of couisc,
discontented and inefficient. We have only
to look to Europe of a few months ago to
see how this sort of thing affected the
people. We need only observe the change

~ that has been wrought by™reason of the

relief supplies of food that have pees sent
from the United States.” :

If New York had its modern terminals,
its adequate wholesale market, at. least
three or four million dollars’ worth of food
waste would be prevented here each year,
Mr. Miller says. Ours is the most wasteful
system on earth, he declares, and that is
one reason why it is so costly. Also, he

says, that is why the big packers are muk-.,

ing so much money. They have absolutely
no waste. They sell -everything but tre
pig’s squeal. But in New York, for in-

stance, there is a loss of more than $1,000,- -

000 worth of food each winter, due to freez-
ing, and in summer a far greater amount
of food rots and spoils because of-the heat.
Proper storage would eliminate this waste,
he says, or at least reduce it to an irre-
‘ducible minimum. Municipal cold storage
warehouses would have to be a feature of
the modern-wholesale market, Mr. Mitler
believes. They would have a restraining
effect on any tendency to monpoliz- ar

' How far would $8 worth of food go?

improperly control the food supply of tne
city. He points out that New York has
spent many. millions of dollars to increase
and improve its water supply, but has not.
spent a cent to improve the handling of its
food supply.

“A few weeks ago we had a- brief: strike.
of the employees of the Interborough Rapid.

Transit, and it is a good thing for Ncw
York that it was brief. It threw New York
back, while it lasted, to the old horse-car
days, with the added turmoil of inereased
swarms of bewildered people and greater
distances to travel.
dling our food supply goes, we are still back

in the old horse-car period. And while we —
are dwelling on this comparison, let me

point out that whoever is destined to put
through New York’s scientific food plans

--will have to do better than we did when we

built the subways. We thought then the

subways were good for twenty-five years’ -

growth, but somebody must have miscal-
culated, for the subways were scarcely.
opened before the cars were jammed, acd
half the passengers were hanging to straps

and standing on one another’s feet.”

Mr. Miller is not one of those who cry
out against cold) storage and cold storage
products. Without cold storage and refrig-
erator cars, he says, this city would be in a
‘very sad plight. 2

“This cry of food hoarding is all bosh,”
he declares. “They say there is more than’

fe 5
maale) yi Ay) KK i) :
OD. OF Lil
q% ae WY i, 6
J 7) NOTICE;
& y | WE RAVE
‘J j A FEW
2 EXCLUSIVE] |
MELONS
ON ;
mie,

(caBBAG ES=
BouTonniere, Ag

| Sevrdvel 2 ata |.

.
che aE

not then an industry.

Well, so far ag han=

GHONES
dvuple
ere fot =
see ~ 804 lb a 3 Brooch - 30d |b]

PEAS
BV S\ SES}

z ©) BY IRS OK

a aie <i - Ain Tees

in the present-day sense. Cold storage was
It is just now be-
ginning to get a foothold. But about the
time that cold storage became a recogniasd
necessity our island was pretty well built
up. Sites were high priced and mighty
hard to get at any price. We weren't like
Chicago and Boston, with lots of elbow
room. We had no ‘outskirts’ easily acces-
sible. Those are the principal reasons why
New York is backward in cold storage facil-
ities, and it is up to the city to remedy the
shortcoming and to. do it as rey. as
possible.

“Then, too, there has been from the out-

set an ill-founded prejudice against cold

storage and cold storage products. Every
time we reached a so-called food ‘crisis’ a
hue and cry was set up against cold storage,
and all manner of harmful legislation was
passed to hamper its development. Ridicu-
lous laws, that wrought no improvement in
food but served to increase the price. Tor
instance, such flapdoodle as requiring the
labelling of eggs with respect to the date
of storage and putting a ninety-day limit

on egg storage, thus forcing the dealer to

dispose of his holdings within a stated time
and making it impossible to keep eggs over
the period when the hens do not lay.

“New York eats 45,000,000 eges a week.
Now, that’s a lot of eggs, isn’t it? Forty-

‘five million eggs a week—125,000 cases.
gs are sold as

Now, a good half of these eg

JEWELS

—

APPLES

| _

*

mS Se

Ae TO rArS SDI OM
14 Karat- logeach hee SK
Ae Karat. 204 presse: =
iH S

Sdlitaires ~ 5¢
S15 ing —

As it seems to the housewife when she goes to market

$30,000,000 worth of foodstuffs stored in
New York City to-day. Well, what of it?
This is a city of six million people, Figure
it out for yourself. Only $8 between us
and starvation.

I ‘would get very uneasy, particularly in
the winter. Suppose a blizzard, or an ex-
treme cold snap, were to tie up all our rail-
roads for two weeks,
There
would be a famine. Then, suppose there
were no food stored, as some of the wailers
against cold storage would have it, and a
blizzard were to tie up the roads. What
then? :
“Mayor Hylan recently discovered iat
everybody already knew, that old breweries
and *other buildings were being used for
the storage of food. And the crying shame
of it is that such places have to be used,
for they are unsuited for the proper con-
servation of food. There is bound to be
great wastage under such conditions. New
Yorky a city of more than 6,000,000 people,
has not more than 25,000,000 cubic feet of
cold. storage space.
000,000 people, has aS much as we have,
and so has Boston, with less than 4,000,000
people. And yet they have better transpor-

tation facilities than we have—better fa-_
They are not on

cilities of every kind.
an island aa we are.

“Why hasn’t New York
storage space?’ Mr. Miller repeated, in an-
swer to a question. “Well, it’s a long story.
Why have we a lack of houses.and apart-
ments? Why have we a lack
buildings? Why have we a lack of so
many other things with’ which other gitce
are plentifully supplied?

greater~ cold

“In the case of cold storage it must be
_remembered, for one thing,

that cold storage _
is practicaly an infant © “industry.
years or °9 ago there wasn’t any sue thing,

If we did not have around ©
$50,000,000 of food stored here all the time ~

where would we be?’ —

Chicago, with only 2,-_

of office -

Thirty

‘strictly fresh.’ All right, What is a strict- _

ly fresh egg? There are as many grades of
eggs as there are ways of making an ome-
lette. The range is all the way from that
rare article, the honestly fresh egg, down to
the ‘cull.’ The cull is a doubtful egg from
the start. It is the ‘tired’ egg. Now, cold
storage cannot make a ‘tired’ egg fresh.
The best it can do is to retard decompo-
sition. . Sometimes it checks it entirely.
Put a strictly fresh egg and.a three months’
cold storage egg side by side, and I defy
anybody to tell the difference, either by
appearance, taste or smell, or by chemical
analysis, if the egg was absolutely fresh
when it was put in cold storage.”
Mr. Miller says the only sure way to get
a “strictly fresh” egg is to watch the hen,
“seize her egg the instant she lays it, woil
it, and eat it immediately. That is. the
ideal “strictly fresh’ egg. But the “strictly
fresh” eggs that New York eats are, gen-
erally speaking, far from this ideal. Some-
times eggs are nearly rotten when they
are gathered on the farm. Ifa farmer finds
an old nest, or an egg or two out among
the weeds, or under the gooseperry bush,
“he puts them in his basket and takes them
to town. They are shipped to the nearest
egg centre. Finally they reach New York,
in refrigerator cars. So much the woise
if they do not come in refrigerator cars,
and so much the worse if they have not
“had the benign benefits of cold storage dur-
ing the intermissions in their journey from
farm to city.
“Millions of eggs are thrown away here

every week,” said Mr. Miller, “because they
; ve , ’

-are candled and found wanting. What
ought to be done is to pass a law that none
but candled eggs be put in cold storage. It
would save great loss and wipe out much
ef the prejudice that now prevails
against cold storage. But cold storage
—uever” es an egg in all the history

, present prices are

= ait Se Teie

“when

of cold storage, and it never spoiled any
other foodstuff, so far as I ean learn.
“All this complaining about could storsze
and hoarding makes me tired. You have to
store in the summer
winter. In these days that is imperative.
Cold storage puts away food in the season
of surplus and keeps it for the season vf
searcity. Because of the demand which it
creates in the surplus season it tends to
raise prices. But in the season of scarcity
it keeps prices lower than they otherwise

would be. New York cannot exist without
it, nor can any other modern city. It is just
as necessary as a water reservoir, Times

have changed. There was a day when
every family had its own food supply, ‘its
cwn gardens and pigs and cows. Now a
man-is only forty-eight hours ahexd of the
food supply. Here in New York he hag to
depend on the corner grocer. The food has

_to gq through many hands before it reaches

him, and the facilities for getting it to nim
are archaic in the extreme. It is that, and

not cold storage, that makes high prices.
~~»

“As for food control and price manipula-
tion, I dare say there are some who attempt
speculation. Take eggs, for instance. ° Eiv-

ery winter some would-be speculator gets ~

stung. It is simply impossible. te control
food prices. If f were offered
dollars for a plan that would control food
and food prices F would have to turn down

the offer. No such plan is humanly {£03-
sible.”
It is Mr. Miller's belief that although

high and burdensome,
the public is-not suffering as much as some
people would like to make out. “All money
comes: down to a question of effort,” he

said. ‘We must give to get. The whole
thing hinges on the value of money, and
there is nothing cheaper to-day than
money. When money is cheap, as it is
- now, the worker gets higher pay. When

he gets higher pay he has to pay higher
prices for food, and is able to pay.-those
higher prices. If wiges continue to go up,
probably food prices will not get any lower,
They are. going up every, tay, along With
wages. They won't come down so long aS
“money is worth as-litfle as it is to- day.

“tO, - ay eset

But thé trouble
will take any trouble
food. They won't go
three or four blocks out of their way to
get cheaper comiodities. They run to the
delicatessens, the most expensive form of
food purchasing, and they run to their
corner grocer, wheu oftentimes by a little
‘shopping’ among pushearts and at stalls
they could get their food-at a much cheaper
rate. .

is that few people
‘about buying their

“Yes, times have changed. Peoople are
living higher now. They are harder to

please, they want the best of everything.
Prices? Poof! What do they care about
prices? They‘do a lot of howling, but they
don’t grasp opportunities fo live cheaper
those opportunities are lying ali
around them. They are too fastidious.
They want out-of-season things, dainties,
luxuries.
A every time.”

Mr. Miller notes that the clamor which
prevailed a few weeks ago against the su-
ealled ‘“hoarders” of food is now subsid-
ing, with practically no evidence of hoard-
ing that is sufficient to convince a jury. A
large stock of food in the storage houses
is no indication of hoarding, he says. Either
there is a surplus’ of food or there is not.
If there is a surplus, the public will get the
benefit of it next winter. If there isn’t a
surplus, it would be suicidal, he says, to re-
lease it now when there is a glut of food on
the market.

“Such a release would have a paralyzing
effect on production, and increased produc-
tion depends absolutely on the utilization
of extensive cold storage facilities,” he
said. “Our production is short enough as
it is. Also, our varied range of diet, made
possible throughout the winter by reason

of cold storage, would be taken from us..

The cold storage man is one of the most
useful servants of the public, but a few
weeks ago some public officials who pursue
the grasshopper policy were calling him a
hoarder and seizing his stocks, forcing them
upon the market when they are not need-
ed. Next winter, when they will be need-
ed, they will be gone. It’s a queer world.”

& &
Who Threw tke Stone ?

A house-hunter saw an advertisement
in the papers describing a charming house
“within a stone’s throw of the station.”

He made an appointment, and in due
course was escorted to the house in ques-
tion, two miles away, says Tit-Bits.

When they reached the threshold he
turned to the agent suavely. “Would you
mind _intrgducing me,” he whispered,

-the persog who threw that stone?”

td

to provide for the_

“toe

a. milion: =

~

SRE: =faieby ~eheap-—
; ‘nowadays, if peopie ante take the trouble -
to look for cheap markets.

They want choice cuts and Grade .

\

a

a . comprehensive:

eS THE EVENING POST MAGAZINE, NEW YORK, SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 13, 1919.

MORITES

Ruins in Mesopotaain. a Country Now Accessite to ee colasists Will Yield New Facts About This

POURS TERE, MAVENS, STIL

Le aS

PEPYS ANNIE
aks hot Recs ed §

Terra cotta cone voicing a prayer of.

thanksgiving, dating back to about
2100 B.C.

in CE he years ago Sayce and William:
Wright, two famous Orientalists,
brought to light a wealth of his-
torical data pertaining to the Hit-

lites, people of a forgotten pre-Biblical
empire. Inscriptions on columns and on

small clay tablets dug up and recognized

as belonging to the Egypt and Babylonia
of 2000 B. C., furnished so many signifi-.
cant allusions to these Old. Testament

Heth, Hitt#, Hittim that the archeologists
delved, scrutinized, deciphered and
redacted. Through years of research,

they compared their finds with ancient
historical chronicles already known to the
world, and in time reconstructed Hittite
history for us.

It was’ one of the most important con-
tributions to archeology in the nineteenth
century. : <

Now comes Prof. Albert. are Clay, curator

of the Babylonian “section” of Yale Univ
sity, . with accumulated cuneiform evi-
dence of another forgotten pre-Biblical
empire for which he claims greater an-
tiquity than did Sayce for the Hittites.
Amurru, Empire of the Amorites, — ““he=
longed to, the historical period just prior
to the ascendancy of the Hittites,” he’
says; Ne probably | antedated them by a
full millennium. His research uncovers for
lise the earliest history of Syria,” since
the Amorites , “lived in. Syria.” s 5s
_, Prof..Clay and his colleagues have been.
poring .over , ideogram . and cuneiform re-
ferring to Amar or Amurru for years
now, seeking to wrest determinate. his-
tory from countless little clay tablets,
many of which are crumbling and have
bits of their text entirely | obliterated. No
Amorite tablet has yet been found, in
Yale’s notable collection nor in any other;
investigations into the life of the Amorites
is being made from references to Amurru
and her people on Babylonian and Su-
merian-Akkadian tablets, and from the
Old Testament. But. enough has already

been gleaned to establish, Amurru’s great

antiquity.
The first, claim foe this great antiquity

‘> owas made by Clay. less than twenty years

agos.,.In. “‘Amurru, the Home ofthe
sieart baud Semites,” he gave to the world
of scholars ‘his initial translations and de-
ducticns from tablet. material relating to
civilization for . the

a much -earlier

~« Amorites than any other. Assyriologist had
“yet attributed..to *them.
“book with
- cently.

articles and, lectures, and re-.
the ‘Yale University. Press
brought out his “Empive: of: the Amorites,”’
treatise on al] . his
Amorite discoveries. to date.

Quotations in “this” article have: hecae
taken by the writer from ‘Prof.
latest book, and from other
‘The source

lectures and letters. is not:

specified each time, for selection has been |
..made solely. with a View of clarifying for:

the lay mind, and without order in choice.

‘Prof. Clay’s deductions on the Amorites
are indicative of what may be unearthed
Jater about -this all-but-forgotten people.
He says: .

“Fxcayations have not been conducted
as yet in the land of the Amorités, ex-
cept in Palestine; and it would appear,
from the light that we havé on the sub-

ject, that this is the least important part :

of the empire. All the light that

can be thrown upon the, early history of

the country (Amurru) is gathered from
contemporaneoys sources and inscriptions
of a later period. Everywhere in, this
broad land (i. e., MesopofAmia), the ruin

He. followed this .
not the purveyors of borrowed religious

and
Babylonia ‘bor-_
rowed from Amurru, from which Israel
disputed by statements of
other “Assy riologists : ‘who feel that Babylo-,

“has .....
that,

Clay’s
references .
_ made by him upon the Amorites in theses, :

ently

By MAY BOSMAN

hills of the past can be seen.
plain between the Lebanons, along the
sea, in the region between the rivers, no-

On the

tably along the Euphrates, can be num-—

bered thousands of sites,:many of which

when opened to the light of day will re-

veal the data whereby the history of the

Amorites can be reconstructed; and that.

empire of the distant past, which has been

Known heretofore only through descen-—

dants of those that have survived its de-
struction, Will take its place in the galaxy

of nations that Bees to the dawn of |

history.”

When sufficient data have been discov-
ered to reconstruct Amiorite history, as
Assyriologists now have every confidence

can be done by digging, Clay will have

given to the twentieth century what

Sayce and Wright gave to the nineteenth:.

an ancient history find of signal impor-
tance. The Old Testament verifies the
great antiquity of the Amorites, but fur-

ther transliterations from tablets in vari-

ous museum collections: will do more than

verify; they will amplify and adjust points e

now obscure and add new facts for vs. -
To students of the Old Testament Prof.
Clay’s general - premises will bring, com-
fort.
Israelites,’ he--claims,
from Babylonia, for the culture of the

Semitic Babylonians. had - along develop- -

ment in the land of Amurru before it

_was carried into Babylonia, and Babylon —

herself. derived most of her. civilization, and -
religion from AmuIru. othe Semites en-

Clay tablet recor ds

The religion and culture of the |
were: not, borrowed .

‘the storm deity” of the Amorites, Clay
suggests. Sumeria and its sister .state,
Babylonia, are the two greatest countries

ef antiquity of which definite tablet

chronicles have come down to us lately;
and these gods of theirs have become
well known to scholars in recent years
from the wealth of redaction, published
from Oxford, Yale, the University of Penn-
sylvania Museum, Harvard, the Louvre.

‘The earliest occurrences of the name

Amurru (which is writtef! ‘mwr, mur and .

mr) are in the inscriptions of Rameses
II (1292-1225 B. C.), of the nineteenth
dynasty. . . . The first Egyptian in-
vasion of northern Amurru of which any

record has been found was in the time.

of Sesostris III (1887-1849 B. C.), of the
- twelfth. dynasty, when Sebek-Khu com-
.mandant of Sesostris, was on a maraud-

ing expedition. and pillaged a place or dis-

trict called Sekmen in. Retenu ,(i. e.,

- Egyptian name for Amurru). “A very

important mural painting was found in a
\ tomb of’ a: governor of Sesostris: III,
named Khnum- hotep, which throws ‘con-
siderable light upon the ‘land of Amurru
in this era. It depicts thg visit of thirty-
seven men, women and- children, who. are
Semitic Asiatics, called ‘Amu.’ Generally
the: ‘Egyptians despised the ‘Amu,’ which
is the usual designation for the dwellers
of Palestine. The ‘Amu’ are headed by
the chief of the highlands, Abesha, who
is depicted presenting a fine wild goat.
ke kilted attendant leads an antelope. The
people are all richly ‘dressed; the women,

in the Babylonian, section at Yale es whose:

collection. as eoeae only to, that a OH OR

with their “
Awar,_

tered ‘Babytonia’’ ‘pode Amor

(variously written Amur,

who became a ‘Sumerian god.”

His contention that the Israelites ‘ ‘were

and myths: ‘from Babylonia,”
on the contrary,

ideas

inherited, is’

nia was the source from “which stories of
the Ola Testament were: “derived and

from which ‘grew “many of ‘the religious.
and practices . of the Jewish and ,

rites
(later) of, the Christian religion. : About
two years ago the, University of. Pent
sylvania Museum

sever al clay prayer. books, the prayers ?
being those of “confession and -atone-
ment,” ‘according to Langdon. If the "2

Yale man can find Amorite prayer books
of confession and atonement - two appar-
contradictor y opinions
cleared up.

The earliest temple in Assyria of Which 7.

Uru), :

published decipher-
ments, by Stephen Langdon ‘of Oxford of

will “be.

we haye knowledge was erected to. Adad

and Anu,

and so forth.

who were also Amorite’ ‘gods.
Adad was the Amorite weather god, ‘god |
of the. _tempest,_ the thunder, lightning, -
* “The actual name of. ‘Enlil,

Sumerian ‘storm | god, may have been
Adad, Shara, Ura, er some other name’ "ee

besides” wearing sandals, ‘are depicted with
socks. One man is playing upon a lyre.
; Their possessions are tied to the backs of
asses. The scene presents a picture of :
highly civilized people, the equivalent: -it

would seem of that. which Egypt'’ "pos-i:

sessed, at least from their ‘appearance.
The inscription reads: ‘The arrival, ‘bring
ing eye paint, “which thirty- -seyen Asidtics''
of the hill- country, Abesha.’ This name’ is’
the same as the Hebrew Abshai.
“Every fact bearing upon the subject in
early references to the land of:
uri Ss adds ‘Clay, “points to it as “ae:
heme of the Semite, ‘redching” back’ “into

aaa

-of no mean character; and indicates, also, '
that from“this land Semites ‘radiated in all’
directions. he Jang tage of Amurru was:
* Semitic. ~ “What may be. called the

- Amoraic or the language of the Amorites .

is the ‘parent of all these branchés’—

the Babylonian, ° Sumerian, Akkadian,
; _Armamean. ““An examination. of the
‘philological material furnished us from
the many Amorite names on ’ Babylonian
tablets’ prior ‘to 2000 Bi Cis and those from

Hebrew.”

the .

--been drawn up.

ie

“(Amu) bring to him. Their leader is’: ‘Sheik’

bert ee
. . ‘. *

“ Canaan as early asi 2000. B. €.;

prehistoric millenniums, ‘with a civilization « es

the few tablets ‘belonging to the early part
of the second millennium B. 5 Oise Hc Seria
show that the ae: ey resembles

“The language of the Babylonians and

- Forgotten pre- -Biblical Empire, Says Prof. Albert T. Clay of Yale

7

the Sumerians, or the Akkadians,” Clay
maintains, “came from Amurru and under
Sumerian influence developed pro-
nounced grammatical differences. This
Akkadian language having been later
used extensively throughout Amurru in
turn has left many traces of its influence
upon the Hebrew and the Aramaic. . . «

“There is a great difference of opinion
as regards the kind of script used by the
Amorites. Most scholars do not admit
that the Western Semites had a script of
their own prior to 1000 B. C., when they
suppose the Pheenician alphabet to have
been introduced. Since in the middle of
the second millennium B. C. the Babylo-

nian language and script were used in-

Palestine, as evident from the Amarna
letters and the Ta’anach tablets, some
hold that the earliest records of the Old
Testament must have been first written
in cuneiform. ogee

“The early Jews had a script of their
own, Which they used on perishable ma-
. terial.” Unfortunately. no sample of this
script has yet been found. It may never
be. found, unless some of it was tran-
scribed to clay. The Yale man adds: “It
must be admitted, of course, that writing
is not mentioned in the Pentateuch until
the. time of Moses. Abraham instructed
Eliezer what to say to his people. When
he bought a piece of ground he called
the sons of Heth at the city,gates as wit-
nesses, although a document may have
Jacob sent messengers
when he entreated the favor :of Esau;
Judah in promising to make payment
gave his staff and the jewel he wore on
a cord about his neck as a pledge. These
facts, however, do not prove, that writ-
ing was not practiced among the
Aramsans or the Amorites.”

The main outlines of the history of the
Hebrews and their neighbors as recorded
in the Old Testament have been upheld
by Clay in all his Amorite research.
From it he has. deduced that Abram,

- Moses and the patriarchal period «are his-

torically correct; that, Ur of the Chaldees
(Mair of. Amurru), the birthplace of

‘was located on the Euphrates» ‘some 200
miles above Babylon; and_ that, since
these northern lands were so long ago the

“home of a great Semitic people, “the gen-

erally accepted theory of the Arabian
origin of the Semites is utterly baseless.”
Whether this last will stand the test of
future revelations unearthed on other
monuments remains to he seen. All
archeological data are subject to change
as new material is dug YP. Sayce held
that Semitic traditions indicated that
Arabia was the original home of the race;
Arabia, he said, is the only part of the
world that has remained exclusively Se-
mitic. Prof. George A. Barton, too, be-

‘lieves that Arabia was the cradle land of

the Jews. But Clay, in stout refutation,
calls attention to the fact that the name
of Abram or. Abraham never occurs in
Arabian inscriptions, although Abraham is
perhaps the most important name in
antiquity.

“Both elements. of the name,” he says,
“have been found in West Semitic in-
scriptions.’ The first allusion to the name
- in: Babylonian tablets has just been de-
~eiphered ‘by. Prof. Ettalene Grice of Yale
‘from a tablet which speaks of “Abram”

and “Abraham” (one person). — ‘
-“T¢ the. Hebrews, came out of Arabia,”
Giay | aOdse oS re ee IE certainly would

seem that at least some hints of such a
- movement. would, be found in the mass

of{ literature which they have handed
- down... There is not a particle of evidence
to substantiate the idea that this move-

ment: () €; about. 1500 B. C.), was from
Arabia.’

Tsaacs.and Jasob, Clay ‘says, existed—
“put «théy . were « “clans, . not » individuals.

:b Arm: Abraham. (or: Abram) people
united with a. Sarah people. and entered
the Isaac
“and. Rebekala tribes were later waves of
“Aramean migration which absorbed the
‘Abriham. and Sarah; people... . .

~“eah,. which: mame means cow, and
‘Rachel,’:..sheep, are merely. collective
names’ for’.cowboys. and. shepherds, two

“main groups -of tribes: that: entered Ca-
“naan from: the:south and east respective-
ly,” and these formed the fourth:wave of
‘Aramaan migration to Canaan. To most
Biblical students this will be somewhat
disquieting. They have looked upon
Rachel as a woman and are asled to_be-
lieve she was an avocation!

Statements such as these are not novel
- to, archzologists, but to the general pub-
lic they are of absorbing interest. Stu-
dents of cuneiform begin by surmising
that a thing is historically true, from
their decipherments; .later,.. preponderant
proof in tablet form interpreted by thenam

g

_ Abraham, ‘was the capital of Amurru.. Ee t= Oneal ee

e ‘

Le
¥

ye

oe

selves

and their. associates substantiate
the surmise beyond shadow of doubt, The
Code of Hammurabi, for instance, is now

known by all Egyptologists to have been.

founded upon a: much older code. Prof.
Clay believes the full older code will
sooner or later be found among Amorite
tablets.- If (Hammurabi's law) was un-
doubtedly “extensively drawn from Amo-
rite sources. This may account for the
fact that the actions of Abraham (of the
tribe?) are in accordance with the code;

"e. g., his (its?) treatment of Hagar, his

adoption of his slave and steward Eliezer,
ete.” Time may prove his contention
sound. It usually does,

It is interesting: to note the methods
by which archeologists arrive at facts of
very ancient history. They have little, in-
deed, to go upon. When a man hag
learned to decipher the strange hen
scratches that combine to make up that
which is known as cuneiform, his task is
only just begun. The tablets which he
must study are-fragmentary; and they are
undated, as we know dating. “In the year
when Ammu-bail, the King, ascended the
throne in his father’s house,” reads a tab-

Jet in the Yale collection. But there may

have been two or three men of the name
of Ammu-bail! Which one is this? Who
is his father? Years may pass before an-
other tablet about Ammu-bail is found,
but the new find is miele to place him ap-

dred years!

of the earliest period merely fror

periods of Babylonian history. Aft

The archeologist puts his g
faith in names, From them he r
structs history. “It is possible e
present time,” writes Clay, “to cons
a fair-sized vocabulary of Amorite

sonal names” already found.

study a man can pick out what are
eign and what are not, and draw
tions. Babylonians and Sumerian.
in the ee of the Tigris and Ee

brews, Bey pane ~ and Arabians. The

presence of these names indicates fos :

including the Amorites, invaded
lands for purposes of commerce, .
they do to-day.
travellers, importers, exporters, merch:
setting up in fresh fields. Hebrew n
abound in Assyrian insoription :

s could never give us,
ing, a comprehensive reconstruction of
- much of the civil, political and every day

They were comfn cial

bought and sold. In the Neo-Babylonian

period after Judea had been carried into

captivity, Jewish names are again promi-
nent in the records of the land, particularly
the business records. They used the 5u-
merian, not the Semitic, language, just as
the Jews of New York make their con-
tracts and carry on their correspondence
in the English language. It was expedi-
ent. :
Gods and goddesses were borne off in-
discriminately by one conqueror and an-
other in this far-gone time. Later they
were recovered amid rejoicing, and. their

home city became again the centre of

their cult. In the library of Ashurbani-
pal, which was dug up only a few years
ago, we find a record of his defeat at Elan;

8 and in that record Ashurbanipal celebrates
the return of Nana to her shrine in Erech.
His scribes inform us that Nana was car-

ried off by Kud-Nahumbi
earlier,

All this admixture of races aha mi-
gration and’ name records has served
its- purpose. Without it archeologists
as they are do-

1,635 years

life of Southern Babylonia in and prior to

$000 B. C.—history more than five thou-
‘sand years old; nor could Professor Clay

have culled the most vital facts relating
to Amurru for us.

He could not tell us that Amurru had a

_ week five days long, wherefore the Amorite

Sabbath—and all these pre-Biblical people
had a Sabbath or a day of worship—came
oftener than .ours; that the Amorites
bought and sold slaves, and that their clay
records of sales have been found through
Syrian excavations;

of Lagash in Babylonia about 4000 B.C,
in chronicles of his extensive building op-
erations and of the quarters of the earth
from_which he obtained material, tells us
that, “besides asphalt, from Amurru, he
brought stones out of which stele were
fashioned, and marble for the temple of
Lagash from the mountain of Tidanu.”
Without the data on bricks that scholars
have learned to read we would not know
that men took census in B. C. Clay re-

fers to an Assyrian census of the seventh —

century B. C. Details of vineyards, orch-
ards and gardens are recorded; the names
of paterfamilias and his sons are given,
but .the names of the women are merely
enumerated, like the items of live stock.

A draft Jaw was in effect then in time~

of war. Babylonia went into Assyria and
drafted Assyrians. and Amorites to fill
up the ranks of her huge armies. A let-
ter has been found among the Oxford tab-
lets in which a man aSks for the exemp-
tion of his son, an ae and his slave,

an Amorite.

that asphalt came-
from Amurru, because Gudea, high priest

5 . : THE EVENING POST MAGAZINE, NEW YORK, iene DAY, SEPTEMBER 138,

~NEW C

RE PAI

a.

3

1919.

RTY IN ENGLAND.

Mixed Reseptinn Given to the Political Combination Which ston: ‘Churchill Is Promoting, Pezhaps to
Take the Place of the Coalition, Now Showing Signs of Disintegration

HERE is-no ground for

in tne formation of a Centre party

in British polities. What is really

a surprising is that no political group
with such «a label ever appeared hefore.
For, in TWngland;
“essence of good form.
eut to the loss’ of respectability than the
holding of extreme views. It might, there-
fore, have been expected that, long before
now, some adroit leader would have seen
the profit to be gaimed by appealing te the
multitudinous moderate man by the at-
tractions of the middle-of-the-road policy,
as against ¢bstructive reaction on the one
side and reckless revolution -on the -other.
Perhaps the explanation is that, until
recently, the whole of Parliament was a
Centre party, of which Whigs and Tories,
and afterwards Liberals and Comserva-
tives, were only subdivisions. Extremists,
whether of the Left or of the Right, were
so few that they were not represeated in

surprise

moderation is of the:
There is.no shorter.

By HERBERT W.

ter to Lloyd George and Bonar Law, in-
viting ther to aitend a dinner at which
the advantages of h permanent Centre
party would be set forth.

been accepted:

himself readily at the head of a group _
of less expert pcliticians who can give.
no assurance of their ability to deliver the’
goods.

There are other prominant mere! ‘how-
ever, who are not so-exigent. Wor ten -
years or so Winston Churchill has been
nursing the idea of a combination between _
the two great parties.

to suit the occasion.
the chairman of the new Centre group is a

another~ cousin, Capt. F. E. Guest, is: the

The invitation .
"was presumably sent, but, thougn three
months have since passed, it has not yet-
Lioyd George is not 2.
child in tactics, and he is not likely to put

_He is a political sol-—
Gier of fortune'of a volatile dispositioff and
with principles that. can easily be modified _
It so happens that
' Liberals, individually and collectively. The’
cousin of his, Capt. Oscar Guest, and that Lin

meer

HORWILL :

"f

: to. the Grencht head of the! Govern-
“ment might be inferred from another pas-

sage in which Mr. Churchill revealed an
incident in the secret history of 1910. At

4 that time, he said, during the crisis occa-

sioned by the Lloyd George budget, its
author was in favor of forming a Coalition

j Government.

_ In the press the Gents party dinner
had a mixed reception. Some papers hailed
iy. as an epoch-making event, while others

4 "dismissed it lightly as a trifle» The London
Nation interpreted it as simply the Prime

Minister's latest “stunt,” and described the

new party as nothing more than an’ organ-

ich “takes over General Croft’s tea-

eneral rally of Conservatism.” The Daily
us hailed the movement as portending
e complete extinction of the Asqnithian

"imes, more cautiously, pointed out that
1e group had no real policy for the future,

Ratt

* ment.

party, lends it.a jazz band and invites a

Times had remarked a few days before,
‘Gs that in which he revealed Mr. Lloyd
George’s plan for a Coalition at the time of
the Constitutional Gonference in the au-
tumn of 1910.” This prediction might have
seemed quite safe, but actually it came to

‘grief, for the passage in question was

omitted, on the ground, as explained by
Mr. Churchill himself, that it did not in
any way affect the substance of the argu-
One of the most prominent fea-
tures of the speech, as now published, was
its violent denunciation of the party sys-
tem as it existed before the war. Mr,
Churchill could imagine nothing more fool-
ish than that British politicians “should

~at some date in the near future divide

themselves again into two factions, hating
each other, despising each other, abusing
each ‘other, without any yeal.moral or men-

talypleavage, and go off into their opposite

eamps and unfurl their party standards,
and by ae faction, by sham antago-

rivalries and —

What EF TT rn 5 es 3 ge
¥VNat DBxXCa Us or VClvilizatic Th woe og 5
An Incomplete story
THE EMPIRE OF TH A HS. New yf periodic }
Havel University Press surroundin cou
] ~ “ » 7 | ences ion
hardly a generavion bz ck, was
| 1 = < « i I ) 1
4 8) a name that occurred occasion lly ; ;
in the ¢ Testament, upon which the i |
i ( 1 }
terpretation cs J
cast a little : Bg nd it Ok
kingdom, Prec is lived « ; .
. : ER ah sae I h ( l I : he
able to give fairly definite form and con- nN tne n i S
if . 900 east and t] { ee] } vest,
sistency in a monograph of nearly 200 Se ;
Bee Az i outh to e Indi ( . and t]) isthmug
pages, embodying all that the decipher- Ge Ser OTE was never united IM
ment of cuneiform inscriptions and the hammed’s time. In the earl ims

materials obtained from scientific excava-
tions have added to our fund of Hebrew
The

is known

book. is
about

and Egyptian information.
a summary of all that
the Amorites, of the hypotheses about them
that can be drawn from that knowledge,
with the refutation of certain theories
which the author thinks erroneous. It is
a fascinating reconstruction of the past
of a region which philologists as well as
theologians are inclined to regard as the
birthplace of languages and nationalities,
the lands where the tower of Babel rose
and the ark came to the ground. Ata
time when diplomacy threatens to settle
upon the United States the responsibility
for preserving order in a large portion of
this territory, it may be well to heed Pro-
fessor Clay’s intimation that 5,000 years
before the Christian era, diversities of race,
of language, of religion and of interests
distracted the land, then the first empire
of the Amorites, as they have ever since.

Much material that may wholly change
our ideas is yet to be obtained, Professor

Clay intimates, by excavating mounds
in the Lebanon valleys and along the

Euphrates, rather than in Palestine, clay

tablets, inscriptions, monuments, the mis-

cellaneous fragments of a past civilization.

He believes the chances for valuabie finds

relating to all the Semitic nationalities are

greater there than elsewhere

Arabia should
t field for exploration, if ever Arab

civilization makes it safe for archeologists

to dig away antiquities. While
accepting eories of physiographers
like Ellsworth Huntington as to the
climatic and physical changes in Asia
which have transformed previously in-
habited lands into deserts, and admitting

that they may be applicable to the interior
of Arabia, Professor Clay

finds no evidence

formed

ith

t contained many

i
from some city, whicl

one
another for the vital of

Amurru, the land Pro-
fessor Clay holds was the Ur of thé
Chaldeans of the Qld Testament, which
he thinks may be the mound called Werti
on the Euphrates, not yet excavated. The
Amorites obtained the upper hand in the
northern Semitic land, made up of Syri

and Mesopotamia, between 5,000 and 3,008
B. C., and introduced the Semitic people
and civilization into Babylonia. Here, as
in his earlier book, “Amurru,” Professor

Clay opposes the theories of the German
school founded by Winkler, the Pan-
Babylonian or Astral-Mythological school,
which maintained that the Babyloniang
furnished the Hebrews with their r
ideas, including monotheism,
endeavored to show that the patriarchs
and other leaders of the Jews, Abraham,
Moses, Joshua, Saul, David, even to John
the Baptist, were solar or lunar deities of
the He believes that those
theories are fading away

Professor Clay then follows system-
atically the traces of the Amorites in the
history and literature of the East. He be-
gins with the Babylonian inscriptions and

eligious
which

and

3abylonians.

shows the part that Amorites had in
Babylonian affairs that
which the Babylonians played in Ar ru.
He then takes up ] in
Mesopotamia and those on the Mediter-
ranean; he telis what the Amorites had
to do with Egypt and Assyria and the part
they play in the Old Testament; he gives
an account of their deities, a rather com-
plicated theogony; he describes th in-
scriptions found in Cappadocia. 'The boo
is a complete account of what is now

known about the Amorites. While it con-
tains much technical matter, as is to he
expected in a volume of the Alexander
Kohut Foundation series, and while the
phonetic transformations may seem start
ling to the layman, there is a mass of

varied and extremely interesting informae-

that
will fully repay the general reader for the

tion to be obtained from each chapter

little additional trenuble it may cost him,

\

] { 1m ] I y
U 1 1 I i
if I | | l
1
i } have
b 10 he j no truth 1 ‘Chris-
Llanity rea Kite} er only stared
it ‘a ) dad that Gordol Col
} rful ba f TY} Ni
I 1 l I nvoivead upon
the Empire by the slaughter at Omdur-
man is weird that the formal curs
conne with so many mummy stories

been fulfilled in the ill-fated
Everybody knows the story of
the British officers who dug up the mummy
and were afterwards killed on a

remains swept away

hunt and their
curse threatening a. violent
noise of

c 3 Thet} .
waters was found on W hether

ordered the Mahdi to be disin-

end, an unknown grave and the

1€ mummy

terred or not, his end was identical with the

curse and reme

dramatic

judges English tatesmen Dj
their treatment of Egypt Lord Rost
bery Liberal who dropped both

Ireland: is his real aversion.

He sums: “him wp as un astute “Whig -<

the Palmerston type and the Radicals have
they deserve.” When the

Irish

got what
members failto champion the dark na-
tionalities, he upbraids“T. P. O’Connor and
points out that, once freed, the Irish aré
likely to turn. We

think not, but the “Hungarians and Polk

tyrannize in~ their

have done so when they had’ the’ chance

and France aroused one greed-
either to

Morocco,

led to a
sh fright-
€ 1 pr Tuy ) Y all LCE

¥ KH : }
' | ould (
Cermany 1 sréeed could have iea
' ’
r : x r peculik rn
1 4 cow LLOwW CIN } 1

: 4 WITIRNA cy | 1{
| J i > 1 NV hk } :) \ | 1 | |
i ii \ NTN Gan Ea i Au YY 1 PIN LU IND ee toe Ls LJ
; } a’
} a
"| i %
\ | ¥ A ly in J] La l
nO
) c
( Ly 1 E i
i I ) i ta
] f ‘ H
orman pt ! ae a \
i } { } nh) ti
‘ t I 1] auring ( Afeha
ey com ver a Ove
ae
y 1d ao ts V
i h ] * 4 4
to neip farrison 1n DLS —wrack on t
in rOVE in Y IN 5 ] yon

to the Vi Rovalty w m to t
. late reward by Gladstone for this polit
cal service, which was no doubt instri
mental in bringing about Disraeli yVve
thro LT the elections »f 1880 Ver
ironical that Disraeli vho invented: tl
title of Indian Empire, should have r‘

ceived his political deathblow from ‘there

We also learn the

BH

uSIOn

rom the Cabinet«by fiat of Quee

Victoria and of Sir William Gregory

accus

carried into fiction by Geors

Meredith in “Diana of the

that Mrs. Norton sold the information

Laws to ti

Times Mi Blunt believes that -Q
Victoria laved a larger and more ami
V 1cT la piayea a argel anc more anit

tious part than is generally

rial ambitiona and relates a

es
oy
wer]

splendi

story to the effect that, having been some

what tossed once at sea, she sent her con

Admiral and told him

must not occur again! Even King ¢
assume to command th

And Wilde

never walk,™ vas ap

waves to Oscar
famous remark, “I

parently made to Mr.: Blunt after a. f

spe
: . =

4
Fy t 1 y | )

i
Hl

cee ee
y 2

YALE ORIENTAL-SERIES
RESEARCHES

VOLUME VI

PUBLISHED ON THE FOUNDATION
ESTABLISHED IN MEMORY OF
ALEXANDER KOHUT

YALE ORIENTAL SERIES - RESEARCHES - VOLUME VI

THE EMPIRE OF THE
AMORITES

BY
ALBERT T. CLAY

NEW HAVEN
YALE UNIVERSITY PRESS
LONDON - HUMPHREY MILFORD - OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS
MDCCCCXIX

Copyricut, 1919, By

YALE UNIVERSITY PREss.

439,45

A a

THE ALEXANDER KOHUT MEMORIAL PUBLICATION
FUND. |

This volume is published by the Yale University Press on the
Alexander Kohut Memorial Publication Fund. This Foundation

_ was established October 13, 1915, by a gift to Yale University from

members of his family for the purpose of enabling scholars to pub-
lish texts and monographs in the Semitic field of research.

The Reverend Alexander Kohut, Ph.D. (Leipzig), a distin-
guished Oriental scholar, in whose memory the fund has been
established, was born in Hungary, April 22, 1842, of a noted family
of rabbis. When pastor of the Congregation Ahavath Chesed in
New York City, he became one of the founders of the Jewish Theo-
logical Seminary, and was a professor in that institution until his
death. He was a noted pulpit orator, able to discourse with equal
mastery in three languages. Among his contributions to Semitic
learning is the monumental work Aruch Completum, an encyclo-
paedic dictionary of the Talmud, in eight volumes. Semitic and
Oriental scholars have honored his memory by inscribing to him a
volume of Semitic Studies (Berlin, 1897).

(5)

BORGH A. BARTOD

ESTEEMED : COLLEAGUE AND FRIEND

PREFACE

Sayce and Wright about forty years ago brought to the attention
of those interested in Ancient History the forgotten empire of the
Hittites. The study of the inscriptions of Egypt and Babylonia
in the decades which preceded had made this possible by furnish-
ing allusions to this people who came to the fore about 2000 B. C.
Another nearly forgotten empire which exerted a powerful influ-
ence upon the surrounding nations, namely the Amorite, is also
brought to light through similar investigations of the last few
decades, largely in the cuneiform literature; but this empire
belonged to the period just prior to the ascendancy of the Hittites.

In Amurru, the Home of the Northern Semites, a study showing
that the religion and culture of Israel are not of Babylonian origin,
the thesis was advanced that the culture of the Semitic Babylo-
nians had, if not its origin, at least a long development in the land
of the Amorites before it was carried into Babylonia; and that the
religion and culture of Israel were not importations from Baby-
lonia, but developed naturally in their own land from an earlier
and indigenous civilization.

As is well known, there appeared in Germany about a score of
years ago a vigorous school of critics generally known as the Pan-
Babylonian or Astral-mythological School, which maintained that
Babylonia had furnished the Hebrews with most of their religious
ideas, including monotheism; in fact, the members of this school
held that the civilization of Israel generally had its origin in Baby-
lonia. Winckler, the founder of the school, endeavored to show
that the patriarchs and other leaders of Israel, as Joshua, Gideon,
Saul, David, etc., were solar or lunar deities of the Babylonians.
Delitzsch called Canaan at the time of the exodus a domain of
Babylonian culture. Gunkel held that Israel’s religion had assimi-
lated actively this Babylonian material, and when it had become
relaxed in strength, it swallowed the foreign elements, feathers
and all. Zimmern found that elements of the Marduk cult were
applied to Christ: even his death was suggested by that of Marduk
and Tammuz. But the most extreme of all was Jensen, who found

(9)

10 THE EMPIRE OF THE AMORITES.

that all the biblical characters, from Abram to Christ, even includ-
ing John the Baptist, were simply borrowed from Babylonian sun-
myths.

In popularizing these theories, as well as others not so far-reach-
ing, that arose in Germany, certain American and English scholars
resorted to all kinds of efforts to pare them down so as to make
them more palatable: by making the borrowings early instead of
late, proposing that when Israel entered Palestine they were part
of the mental possession of the people; or by making it appear
that these Babylonian myths were simply used in a devotional way
to illustrate ethical implications, or as media for the expression of
a more spiritual faith. In many quarters, scholars gravitated
toward this theory; and it was conceded generally that there was
a considerable dependence upon Babylonia. Reflections of these
revolutionary ideas flared up almost everywhere.

The purpose of the study Amurru was to examine the data upon
which the theories rested; the results were such that it could be
asserted that Israel did not adopt the civilization of the Babylo-
nians and that they were not the purveyors of borrowed religious
ideas and myths from Babylonia. The study of the cultural
elements of both lands did not show such Babylonian influence, for
apart from the use of the Babylonian language and syllabary in
the West, the evidence from the Neolithic to the Greek period is
wanting. To cite a single test, Ellil was the name of the chief god
of Babylonia until Marduk supplanted him. Nergal was also a
well known Babylonian deity. The thesis Amurru maintained that
these were names of Amorite deities which had arisen in Babylonia
largely because of the form in which they had been written: En-lil,
Amar-Utug, and Ne-Uru-Gal. Even though this proves incorrect,
if Babylonia furnished the West with its religion and culture, where
is the influence of these deities seen? The single use of the ideo-
gram Ne-Uru-Gal on the Ta‘anach seal proves nothing, for it
doubtless reproduces the name of an Amorite god. But where in
the West do we find the pronunciation of Ellil, Marduk, Nergal,
which we know was actually used in Babylonia?

* Post-exilie names like Mordecai of course cannot be considered; nor
“‘the priest of Nergal’’ mentioned in a Phoenician inscription of the third
century B. C.

PREFACE. aa

The thesis was presented not only to demonstrate that the Pan-
Babylonists’ claims must be abandoned, but also to show that the
elements from which the Semitic Babylonian religion had largely
evolved had their origin in the West land, or in the land of
Amurru; and that, instead of the Hebrew culture being imported
from Babylonia, it had grown up and developed naturally from
older and indigenous civilizations which had come down from gen-
erations reaching far back into the ages. To make this appear
reasonable, it became necessary to show that there was an anti-
quity for the civilization of this Semitic land which had been
hitherto unrecognized.

It was fully expected that out of the mass of details offered in
substantiation of the thesis, certain reviewers would seize upon
such as would be readily recognized as doubtful by the casual
reader. Mingled with the hundreds of facts presented in Amurru,
there are many comparisons and suggested identifications set forth,
that the unbiased investigator recognized were not ‘‘put on the
same level.’? For as one scholar wrote: ‘‘It is sufficient merit
to have opened up new vistas of the ancient culture of the Northern
and Western Semites; and even if some of the points emphasized,
perhaps unduly, should not turn out to be supports for the theories,
enough and more than enough remains to substantiate the main
thesis that the Amorites entered Babylonia at an early period
and brought the worship of certain gods and cosmological and
other traditions with them, and that what we designate as Baby-
lonian religion is the result of the mixture of these Amoritish ele-
ments with those indigenous to the Euphrates Valley.’”

It was not thought for a moment that such an innovation would
appeal to Winckler and his followers, abroad or in this country.
It was not even contemplated that such a reactionary view would
cause the casting aside of the cherished Pan-Babylonian theories
by those who had adopted them as their own. And yet the publi-
cations since the appearance of the book in 1909 show that the
stream of Pan-Babylonian literature suddenly changed from a tor-
rent to an almost insignificant rivulet.

Most gratifying has been the number of those who, by review or
comment in various publications, or by correspondence, have

2 Prof. J. A. Montgomery in The Nation, March 24, 1910, p. 291.

12 THE EMPIRE OF THE AMORITES.

accepted the new point of view; and even of those who, though
unable to see their way clear to reverse completely their position,
have realized that the cumulative proof presented is evidence of
a character that requires serious consideration.

The work Amurru was in no sense meant as an apologetic effort
in the interests of the traditional view of the Old Testament. It
was not intended to minimize the fact that the biblical writers
brought the current myths or legends, with which they were
acquainted, into accord with their advanced monotheistic concep-
tion of the government of the universe. It did, however, defend
vigorously the historical existence of such personages as Abraham,
Moses, ete., as well as of a patriarchal period. While there was no
apologetic effort intended, the conclusion which resulted tended
to emphasize the reliability of the main outlines of the early history
of the Hebrews and neighboring peoples as recorded in the Old
Testament.

The purpose of the present contribution is to assemble all the
light that bears upon the history and religion of the Amorites,
especially of that early period when the empire still existed; to
corroborate the great antiquity that the writer has claimed for
this people in making them one of the earliest known; to show that
Ur of the Chaldees was very probably the capital of the Amorite
empire; incidentally to offer additional evidence in substantiation
of the thesis of Amurru; and to demonstrate that the generally
accepted theory of the Arabian origin of the Semites is utterly
baseless.

It would be rash to imagine that all the multitudinous details
set forth will pass the test of future searching inquiry. Inevitable
alterations and difference of opinion manifestly will result from
their presentation; yet it is fully expected that the main outlines
will stand the test.

The writer is indebted to his colleague Prof. C. C. eee to
Prof. A. T. Olmstead, Doctor Ettalene M. Grice and Doctor Henry
I’. Lutz for valuable suggestions, and assistance rendered in con-
nection with the manuscript and proofreading.

Apert T. Cuay.
New Haven, Conn.,
November 11, 1918.

CONTENTS.

Page
LAR |G LO Te OMS ik eeeeine Be TO Re Od Som re oD 17
ithe tomewr che Semiles a iia. va ote es ieee eee 27
PERCH OUMIUEy AMMETTIS 320i anaa lane goles avs ates Se eekly 50
eee on ae: we Pose te 53
Pe HPAES ARE CATR EEA) 4 bs yiek! srg. 56 dee lw ake MOTTE URS 58
The Languages and Writing of Amurru ............. 61
SL TO iy ene eT OTP ss ee cana ed seo wh winch socige pee 66
LO imenr ta toa OIA oa. y's akg 15 Gk wees a awa 76
arly: ior hy lOmin ndth SANIT UL s:, 6e baie 5 Tae ve cae 95
pgs hi SABES SVEN Wry bees: Ohi 7 ga a a rire ae Ale 100
Other Mesopotamian Kingdoms ................002- 111
Mediterranean, Kinedonts, « «yee cds pois sacn arenes 121
PAIBOPLLCS IN CAPPAdOCl ns diel a. s44N% ole cos een 131
VANE GT TBs Fi AP Silay! havin v lev Ding dare ce eee 138
Amorites in the Old Testament .................... 152
BASE VG aA ATA EE UDA Nous tanslne Paw pate a ate Su; Sao cana, § 156
Hr UE Corsa M2101 i) ae a aa oR a 162

(18)

Re

A&B
ABL
ADB
ADD

AE

AJT
AJSLI
Amurru
AKA
APN

B

BA
Babyloniaca
BAR

BE

BRM
Catalogue

Clay PN
Chron
CT

EBL
EM

HB
HE
HLC
JA
JAOS
JBL
JRAS
KB
KAT*

ABBREVIATIONS

Barton, Archaeology and the Bible.

Harper, Assyrian and Babylonian Letters.

Johns, An Assyrian Doomsday Book.

Johns, Assyrian Deeds and Documents.

Miller, Asien und Europa.

American Journal of Theology.

American Journal of Semitic Languages.

Clay, Amurru the Home of the Northern Semites.

King, The Annals of the Kings of Assyria.

Tallqvist, Assyrian Personal Names.

Briinnow, A Classified List of Cuneiform Ideographs.

Bettrige zur Assyriologie.

Babylomaca-Etudes de Philologie Assyro-Babylonienne.

Breasted, Ancient Records of Egypt.

Babylonian Expedition of the University of Pennsylvania.

Babyloman Records in the Library of J. Pierpont Morgan.

Catalogue of the Cuneiform Tablets in the Kouyunjik Collec-
tion.

Clay, Personal Names of the Cassite Period (YOR 1).

King, Chronicles concerning Early Babylonian Kings.

Cuneiform Texts from Babylonian Tablets, etc., in the Brit-
ish Museum.

Lutz, Early Babylonian Letters from Larsa (YBT Il).

Miller, Egyptian Mythology; Vol. XIII, The Mythology of all
Races.

King, A History of Babylon.

Breasted, A History of Egypt.

Barton, Haverford Library Collection of Cuneiform Tablets.

Journal Asiatique.

Journal of the American Oriental Society.

Journal of Biblical Literature.

Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society.

Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek.

Zimmern and Winckler, Die Keilinschriften und das Alte

Testament.
(15)

16

KTA
LC

LIH
MBI
MDOG
MI

Miscln

MVAG
OLZ
PSBA

R

RA
RBBA
Ranke PN

Ta‘ annek

TSBA
UMBS

VB
VS
YBC
YBT
YOR
ZA

THE EMPIRE OF THE AMORITES.

Messerschmidt, Keilschrifttexte aus Assur.

Thureau-Dangin, Lettres et Contrats de l’époque de la pre-
miére Dynastie Babylomenne.

King, Letters and Inscriptions of Hammurabi.

Barton, Miscellaneous Babylonian Inscriptions.

Mitteilungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft.

Clay, Miscellaneous Inscriptions in the Yale Babylonian Col-
lection (YBT I).

Weissbach, Babylonische Miscellen; Part I Wissenschaftliche
Veriffentlichungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft.

Mitteilungen der Vorderasiatischen Gesellschaft.

Orientalistische Literatur-Zeitung.

Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Archaeology.

Rawlinson, The Cuneiform Inscriptions of Western Asia.

Revue d’Assyriologie et d’Archéologie Orientale.

Jastrow, Religious Belief in Babylonia and Assyria.

Ranke, Harly Babylonian Personal Names.

Revue Sémitique.

King, Sumer and Akkad.

Reisner, Sumerisch-Babylonische Hymnen.

Hrozny, Die Keilschrifttecte von Ta‘annek, in Sellin Tell
Ta‘ annek.

Transactions of the Society of Biblical Archaeology.

The University Museum Publications of the Babylonian Sec-
tion.

Vorderasiatische Bibliothek.

Vorderasiatische Schriftdenkmdaler.

Yale Babylonian Collection.

Yale Oriental Series—Babylomian Texts.
Yale Oriental Series—Researches.
Zeitschrift fiir Assyriologie.

a
INTRODUCTION

The evidence of the early existence of the Amorites, as well as
the proof of the futility of the Arabian theory, depends largely
upon a study of names of countries, cities, temples, deities, and
persons. An occasional historical reference is found which throws
welcome light upon the subject, as for example, the origin of the
founder of a dynasty, an allusion to the invasion of the land, or a
title showing suzerainty of the country, ete. But in determining
origins or influences, and even data upon which historical events
are based, there is no more important evidence available at present
than that furnished through the study of names.

In not a few instances, considerable depends upon even a single
name; for example, it rested alone upon the resemblance of the
name Humbaba of the Gilgamesh epic to the name Humba, an
Hlamitic god, that the belief that the cedar forest scenes of the epic
were laid in Elam, instead of the Lebanon or Amanus districts,
which, however, is now definitely shown is a mistake (see Chapter
WATER

There are known at present more than a hundred thousand per-
sonal names which were written upon clay tablets belonging to all
periods of Babylonian history. Having the opportunity of study-
ing such large masses of names of a particular country, it becomes
possible to single out or designate with considerable accuracy what
is foreign and what is not.

A large number of foreign names in Babylonian literature do
not contain any known elements, which fact makes it impossible to
identify their source; but thanks to our increasing knowledge of
the cultural elements of certain peoples, at least those of a general
character, and more exact knowledge of the civilization of others,
it is quite possible to identify with considerable accuracy names
on the one hand that are Babylonian or Sumerian, and on the other
that are Cassite, Hittite, Mitannian, Elamitic, Persian, Hebrew,

Egyptian, Arabic, Greek, ete. .
(17)

18 THE EMPIRE OF THE AMOBITES.

Most of these nationalities can readily be determined from a
knowledge of their nomenclatures; but even the nationality of
names in languages of which we have little knowledge can fre-
quently be identified. Although to start with we may be familiar
with only a few names belonging to a foreign people, it neverthe-
less soon becomes possible to identify many scores of others as
belonging to the same people. For example, we may know that
Teshub was the name of a Hittite god, who was also worshipped
in Mitanni. Names constituted with Teshub can therefore be ten-
tatively set apart as Hittite, or Mitannian. The elements that are
found combined with Teshub are compounded with names of other
deities, which enables us to increase the list, at least tentatively.
This process can be continued until a surprisingly large list of
words is collected. The possibility of error in thus assembling and
determining foreign names, as well as words, belonging to peoples
of whose language we have little or perhaps no knowledge, is recog-
nized; but nevertheless, although such lists of foreign names suffer
modification, the method leads to permanent results.

The foreign names found on tablets from Babylonia represent
the peoples that came in contact with those who lived in the valley
of the Tigris and Euphrates. In some instances only isolated
examples occur, and again masses of names, belonging to a partic-
ular people. In many instances such influx of foreigners is caused
by migrations or conquests; a foreign nation has invaded the
land; or these alien names represent peoples who were brought
captive into the land, or who settled in it. These foreign names,
considered in connection with the personal names of rulers, make
it possible in some instances to reconstruct considerable history
with little additional data. For example, in the time of Manish-
tusu, many Amorite names occur. The names of the rulers of the
Nisin, Larsa, and Babylon dynasties, which were contemporaneous,
as well as the thousands of foreign Amorite names in the legal and
epistolary literature of the latter part of the third millennium
B. C., show the same influence. The names of the rulers of the
Cassite period bear Cassite names, and the documents of this time
contain many of the same character, and also Hittite-Mitannian
names. Hebrew names abound in the Assyrian inscriptions, after
Israel had been carried into captivity. The same is true in the

I. INTRODUCTION. 19

Neo-Babylonian period after Judah had been carried into captivity.
In the Persian period, besides Hebrew names, many Persian and
some Egyptian names occur, the latter apparently due to the rule
of the Persian kings in Egypt. And as was to be expected, in the
Greek period, Greek names are found. Besides the large masses
of foreign names, smaller groups in the various periods can in
many instances be accounted for. Hven the absence of such for-
eign names in certain periods furnishes very important data in
deciding questions bearing on invasions, migrations, influence, ete.
In brief, the study of names, together with isolated historical facts
gathered from the records of contemporaneous peoples, has made
it possible to create at least the outlines of the history of certain
ancient nations.

A complete treatise on the political history and religion of the
land Amurru would embrace all our knowledge of Hebrew history
and religion, the early legends and primitive religions of Palestine
referred to in the Old Testament, the history and religion touched
upon in the Amoraic and Aramaic inscriptions of the first millen-
nium B. C., as well as in the later Greek and Roman sources. It
is the purpose of the present study, however, to emphasize espe-
cially the material belonging to the history of the early period,
when the Amorite empire existed. Incidental references are made,
however, to certain facts belonging to the later period, from
Egyptian and Biblical sources, which throw light upon questions
belonging to the early period.

We are here interested chiefly in the Amorites of the third,
fourth, and fifth millenniums B. C., when the great empire of the
Amorites existed, although the prevailing view is that the Semites
of Amurru came out of Arabia as barbarians in the latter part of
the third millennium B. C., and later. True, the knowledge we
have of their early history is little more than a glimmer here and
there, obtained from the records of Babylonia and Egypt, except
as we feel the pulse of this people by contact with offshoots that
appear in the surrounding lands. It is upon these data that we
must largely rely at present; namely, the influence exerted by the
Amorites upon peoples with whom they came in contact through
their encroachments upon, and invasions of other lands.

The existence of an Amorite civilization as early as the Baby-

20 THE EMPIRE OF THE AMORITES.

lonian, as well as the inference that Amurru furnished Babylonia
with its Semitic inhabitants, as noted, are dependent largely upon
the Sumerian and Akkadian inscriptions. Unfortunately at the
very beginning of our investigation we are confronted with the
difficulty of differentiating between what is Sumerian and what is
Semitic.

The fact that a name or a religious idea appears in the Sumerian
language does not necessarily imply that it is Sumerian. Much
that has been credited to the Sumerians has already proved to
be Semitic. The idea of the ziggurrat, for example, being a high
place, upon which the gods were worshipped, is generally regarded
as a Sumerian idea. This seems to be almost entirely due to the
fact that the towers bear Sumerian names, as well as the temples
with which they are connected. But this is the case even in centres,
as far as is known, that have always been Semitic. It is largely
because of these names that the Sumerians are regarded as having
come from a mountainous district.

We know of a certainty that in all early periods of which we
have knowledge, the Semite as well as the Sumerian used the lan-
guage of the latter. Even in comparatively late periods Sumerian
was used for legal purposes; and up to the very latest, as the litur-
gical language. It was used frequently also for monumental
purposes in all periods. Lugal-zaggisi used both languages on
his monuments (cf. BE I, 87, and UMBS V, 34). The same is
true of Sargon (UMBS V, 34, ete.), and kings of the Nisin, Larsa,
and Babylon dynasties.

Long ago it was argued that Lugal-zaggisi was a Semite, when
only his Sumerian inscription was known (BE I, 266- 268). It was
also maintained that names like Ur-Nina (aaa Nina), A-Kur-
Gal (Apil-Uru), Dun-gi (Bau-ukin, or perhaps Dun-Gir ‘‘the
Hero of Gir’’), etce., were Semitic, but that they appeared in a
Sumerian garb. Naturally it is possible to transpose most of the
Sumerian names into Semitic, because the ancient Oriental and
other names had much in common in construction and in meaning,
even if not linguistically.

While unfortunately it cannot be proved to what extent this was
actually done, the custom can be shown to have been practiced.

I. INTRODUCTION. 21

For example, in the period of the Larsa dynasty, the golden era
of Babylonian history, we know of Semitic names of places which
were written phonetically, giving us the exact pronunciation of
these names, that were also written in Sumerian; and in some
cases the elements are transposed, for example, Ishkun-Nergal, the
Semitic name of a city in the fourteenth year of Rim-Sin, is also
written in Sumerian, Nergal-gar-ra.1_ Also because of other con-
siderations it is very often difficult to know from the form in which
the personal name appears, whether we have to do with an Akka-
dian (i.e. Semitic) or a Sumerian.

But this is not without a parallel even in the present time. A
Japanese name written ideographically can be also pronounced in
Chinese, which would be quite different from Japanese; and in
fact unless the name is known to be one or the other, in many
instances, it cannot be determined. With the knowledge, there-
fore, that a centre was Semitic, and also that the dynasty was
Semitic, we have reason to infer that many of the personal names,
even though written in Sumerian, were actually Semitic. The
same is true of the names of temples, ziggurrats, and deities. Ne-
Uru-Gal, ‘‘Nergal,’’ is the name of a deity in a Sumerian garb,
but we know the deity was Semitic.

The names of the temples of every city, Akkadian as well as
Sumerian, appear with Sumerian names in the inscriptions. This
is true even in Amorite lands, for example, the temples at Aleppo,
Harran, Tirga, etc., bore Sumerian names. It is impossible to
explain this at the present time in any other way than that it was
due to the fact that the Semites had used the language and script
of the Sumerians at a very early time, of course, prior to our
earliest records. From this we get the impression that we are far
from the point of having clear ideas as to where and when the Sem-
ites first used the Sumerian cuneiform for their language.

Naturally, these are problems which can only approach solution
after more is known about the written language of the Semitic
peoples other than the Semitic Babylonian, from whom the latter
came. At present, absolutely nothing is known of any Semitic
script except the Babylonian, prior to the earliest known Phoe-

*See Grice, Chronology of the Larsa Dynasty, YOR IV 1.

22 THE EMPIRE OF THE AMORITES.

nician and Aramaic alphabetic writing, and this is dated from
about 1000 B. C. Semites in Cappadocia already used in the third
millennium B. C. what we have been regarding as the Babylonian
language and script. A few tablets found in middle Mesopotamia
indicate that in the early part of the second millennium the Baby-
lonian script was used there. And of course the Amarna letters
and the Hittite tablets show that the language and script were
used throughout the land in the latter half of the second millen-
nium B. C., not only for Semitic tongues but non-Semitic as well.

These and other considerations make us conclude that many of
the problems involved are far from solution at the present time.
We may ultimately find that the Semites had adopted their system
of cuneiform writing before they settled in the valley; or that they
did not have a written language for a period after they entered
the valley, until the Sumerians invaded and became masters of the
land; or we may find that the Semites, bringing with them their
culture, invaded the land already occupied by the Sumerians, upon
whom, however, they were dependent for their written language,
and from which contact their own system of writing evolved. The
Sumerian being the parent script and perhaps for a time the only
one used by the Semitic Babylonians, it is not difficult to under-
stand how its use was very much more extensive in the early period
than the script which had evolved from it.

While these questions cannot be solved, the writer, in view of the
increased light upon the situation covering investigations of a
series of years, inclines more and more to the view that the Semitic
elements that have been absorbed in the culture we regard as Baby-
lonian, are much more numerous than is usually recognized; and,
moreover, that although the names of temples, gods and individ-
uals appear in a Sumerian garb, this is no proof that they are not
Semitic.

Zimmern in his Busspsalmen admitted that the penitential
psalms may represent translations from the Semitic Babylonian
into Sumerian, and that there were no certain criteria for deter-
mining whether a text was of Sumerian or Babylonian origin.
Prince in his Materials for a Sumerian Lexicon also takes the posi-
tion that many of the Sumerian texts are really ‘‘translations of

I. INTRODUCTION. 23

Semitic ideas by Semitic priests into the formal religious Sume-
rian language.’’ The late American scholar, Rudolph Briinnow,
in letters published some years ago by Halevy (RA 18, 259 ff.),
took the position that all the so-called bilingual texts revert to
Babylonian originals. He inclined to the view that the Semites
were the original inhabitants of the valley, and that the Sumerians,
on entering, largely adopted the civilization they found in the land.
He did not maintain that the origin of the civilization was Semitic,
but that it was a product due to the amalgamation of these two
races, in which the Semitic element predominated, and eventually
gained supremacy.

The thought expressed by these writers, that much of the Sumero-
Akkadian literature that has been handed down is Semitic and not
Sumerian, seems perfectly reasonable in the light of all that is
known. Even as regards the religious texts the knowledge that
the writing was confined to the scribe or priest, makes it reason-
able to infer that the formulae which were intended to invoke the
deities or charm the spirits would be couched in a form more or less
unintelligible to the pious Semitic applicant. The religious and
intellectual leaders were in this way able to awe their clients and
keep them dependent upon them by using a language that was
unintelligible.

Eduard Meyer is also of the opinion that the Semites occupied
the land prior to the entrance of the Sumerians, who, he holds,
settled in southern Babylonia, drove the Semites northward, and
occupied their old cult centres. He bases his argument on the fact
that the monuments show that the Sumerians represented their
gods with abundant hair and long beards, while they themselves
shaved their heads and faces; also that the garments they repre-
sent their gods as wearing are different from those of the people.
Since gods are usually depicted wearing the same costume as man,
it must follow that the image of the gods, as regards their hair and
dress, must have been according to the pattern shown them by their
predecessors, whom Meyer thinks were the Semites. To be con-
sistent, Meyer would have to admit that the primitive and uncul-
tured Semite must have dressed well; and that the Sumerian, who
had the genius for art, was dependent upon him at least for these

24 THE EMPIRE OF THE AMORITES.

marks of his civilization. This reminds us of the well-dressed
Amorites, whom the Egyptian artist depicted in the tomb of Beni-
Hassan (see Chapter XIV).

The question as to whether the Semites or the Sumerians first
occupied the land of Babylonia, is here irrelevant. Suffice it to
know that in the earliest history known, we find both present in
Sumer as well as in Akkad. )

In this connection, it seems fitting to discuss briefly the keeping
distinct or differentiating between what is Akkadian or Semitic
Babylonian and what is West Semitic. In answer to the criticism
of Bohl,? who takes issue with the thesis presented in Amurru on
the ground that it does not keep separate these elements, which
difference the Babylonians themselves, as early as the time of
Hammurabi, clearly recognized, it is only necessary to rehearse
what is clearly set forth in Amurru the Home of the Northern Sem-
ites.

The title of this thesis implies that the home of the Semites who
are regarded as the northern branch of the Semitic family, is in
the lands west of Babylonia; that the people from this region
migrated to the Euphrates valley, and in time were called Akkad-
ians; that periodically, after the civilization of the earliest
invaders, influenced by the Sumerians, had been developed into
what is peculiarly known as Akkadian, there were invasions or
migrations during the succeeding millenniums that brought addi-
tional people from the same region into the valley. We are deal-
ing with millennia. The civilization under these conditions, after
a century or two, would be sufficiently removed from what it was
originally, so that the people who came afresh from the old centres
would be recognized as foreign. The distinction, naturally, would
be more pronounced in centres where Sumerian influences were
greater.

Each Babylonian city, as we know, represented a principality,
and each had its temple and school of scribes which was distinct
from other schools. The different appellations of the same sun-
deity of the Semites can only be accounted for in this way. The
hundreds of names of deities written in Sumerian show that as a
rule it was customary to write them ideographically, and that the

2 Kanaander und Hebrier, p. 39.

I. INTRODUCTION. 25

ideograms selected were often descriptive of the god’s attributes ;
as for example, ¢Hn-lil, ‘‘Lord of the storm’’; *?Hn-amas, ‘‘ Lord
of the fold’’; or, as indicative of the god’s origin, ?Hn-Din-tir™,
‘Lord of Babylon.’’ It can scarcely be thought possible that all
the gods’ names in Sumerian were in common usage pronounced
as written, for example: ‘Nin-a-dam-azag-ga, ‘Nin-tgi-ze1-bar-ra,
dU mun-bad-urudu-nagar-ki, ete. Other ideographically written
names of deities, however, even though originally not intended to
be pronounced as such, for example, *Ne-Uru-gal, perhaps ‘‘light
of the great Uru,’’? “Amar-Utug, a syneretistic formation, ¢Hn-lal
‘lord of the storm,’’ ‘Nin-gal ‘‘great lady,’’ etc., in time were
called or pronounced Nergal, Marduk, Ellil, and Nikkal respec-
tively. The actual name of the deity En-lil, however, may have
been Adad, Shara, Ura, or some other name of the storm-deity. In
other words, the ideogram itself in some instances was pronounced
and came into use, and even displaced the original name of the
deity.

It is understood that ?“Nin-Gir-Su, Lady of Girsu, at Telloh, was
a deity similar if not identical with *Nin-IB at Nippur. The name
of the latter we now know was pronounced Inurta or Inmashtu in
the late period (see Chapter XVII). It would not be surprising
to learn that “Nin-Gir-Su originally was simply another ideogram
used at Telloh for the same name Urta or Inurta. Doubtless, the
ideogram ¢Nin-Mar™ and many others were originally the same.
At Umma the name of the deity Shara was perhaps without any
exception written in that city with the sign Lagab with igi-gunu,
inserted, and yet there are reasons for holding the view that Shara
was a very common name or element found in the appellations of
deities and temples, not only in Babylonia but in Amurru (see
Chapter XVII, and MZ p.14). While most of the several thousand »
names of Babylonian deities appear in Sumerian dress, from the
few whose actual pronunciation we now know we have reason for
believing that the origin of a very large number of the ideograph-
ically written names in Sumerian was Semitic.

As an illustration, let us think of the original Semites entering
Babylonia from Amurru with their deity ’Amor (’Amur= ’Awur=
Uru). In a thousand years, under circumstances referred to
above, not only could the name have suffered modifications, but

26 THE EMPIRE OF THE AMORITES.

the conception of the deity as well. Even in Amurru, during the
thousand years under different influence, the conception of the deity
as well as the pronunciation of its name may have suffered modi-
fication, so that there would be quite a gap between this cult of the
peoples living in Babylonia and the newcomers. In other words,
we must look upon the Semites, who had originally entered Baby-
lonia from the wide area of Amurru, as having modified under other
influences their religious conceptions. Different names for their
storm-deity had in the meanwhile arisen in the different centres
occupied by Semites, which, as was said, were more or less distinct
from each other and under different influences. In other words,
in a thousand years, under influences of this kind, a culture would
have developed quite distinct from what had previously been
brought into the land. With these conditions in mind, it is quite
understandable that the priests and the guild of scribes would look
upon the fresh influx of Amorites as foreigners, and as possessing a
cult quite distinct from their own. The same was true with refer-
ence to personal names; for example, the name Ishme-Dagan
was originally Amorite, and was pronounced Jashma’-Dagan in
Amurru, but it had long been Babylonized and pronounced Ishme-
Dagan. When, however, fresh invasions brought men bearing the
name into the country the difference in the pronunciation was
noted, for the scribes wrote Ja-as-ma-’-4Da-gan. In other words,
in a generation or so the foreign Semites were more or less Baby-
lonized, or were absorbed completely by the Akkadians; and if
there were no fresh influx, foreign names either gave way to Akka-
dian, or the nomenclature gradually ceased to show any distinction
in the pronunciation. This is shown by a study of the names in the
period of the Cassite dynasty, which followed that of the West
Semitic Larsa, Nisin, and Babylon dynasties, when Amorite names
_ abounded. In the Cassite period, owing to the inactivity of the
Amorites, West Semitic names very generally disappeared. The
eult of the individual family was doubtless given up for that of
the land, with which it had much in common.

The distinction, therefore, as to what is West Semitic and what
is Akkadian, was clearly made in Amurru (in spite of the asser-
tion of Bohl, mentioned above), and is kept in mind throughout
this discussion.

1a

THE HOME OF THE SEMITES

There are those who hold the view that the Semites and the
Hamites were originally one race, and lived in Northern Africa,
whence the Semites passed over into Arabia, and from there were
dispersed. ‘The view, however, that Arabia was the original home
of the Semites is generally accepted by scholars. The Semites
that are found in other lands surrounding Arabia are regarded
simply as successive migrations of Arabs that have deposited them-
selves layer upon layer in those lands. The migrations, due to
over-population, have recurred periodically. We are told that
Arabia breeds vast numbers of its nomad tribes, but it can not
support them; that a thousand years was required to fill Arabia up
to the point when it could no longer sustain its inhabitants, and in
consequence they migrated to adjacent lands. With slight varia-
tions this ‘stock’ theory has been used by a succession of writers.
They tell us that the first migration of which we have knowledge
brought the Semites into Babylonia. The second migration is
represented by the Semitic outbursts on Palestine between 2500 to
2000 B. C., and accounts also for the Semitic invasion of Babylonia
when the rulers of the First Dynasty of Babylon controlled the
land; this theory, however, has recently been modified. The third
periodical disgorging of Arabia is known as the ‘‘ Aramaean migra-
tion,’’? when the land again ‘‘spat out.’? Some hold that this
migration began near the middle of the second millennium B. C.,
and others that they first moved out in the thirteenth century. This
migration took the Aramaeans into Syria and Mesopotamia, and
their kindred tribe, the Hebrews, into Palestine. The next so-
called ‘‘spilling over’’ period, or ‘‘sporadic wave of hungry tribes-
men,’’ was from the fifth century, when the Nabataeans moved upon
Petra. And the last is when Islam invaded Western Asia and
parts of Europe. In nearly every work that is examined on the
history of Semitic peoples, some form of these statements, making
Arabia the cradle of the Semites, or making all Semitic peoples

come from Arabia, is found.
(27)

28 THE EMPIRE OF THE AMORITES.

One of the earliest writers to have maintained that Arabia was
the primitive home of the Semites was the German scholar
Sprenger who in his Das Leben und Lehre des Mohammed (1861,
241 ff.), and in later works, maintained that agriculturists do not
become nomads, and that all Semites are Arabs. Sayce, as early
as 1872, declared that the Semitic traditions all point to Arabia as
the original home of the race; it is the only part of the world which
has remained exclusively Semitic. The racial characteristics—
intensity of faith, ferocity, exclusiveness, imagination—can best be
explained by a desert origin. Schrader, De Goeje, Wright, and
Meyer, were other writers who held similar views.!

The periodical wave theory seems to have been originated by
Winckler who in his Geschichte Babyloniens und Assyriens says:
‘“The home of the Semites was Arabia, due to geographical consid-
erations and to the fact that the purest Semites are at present
found in that land. The migrations are due to over-population
and recur periodically. He said, ‘‘we have definite knowledge of
four main Semitic migrations northward.’’ These are in reverse
order: 1. The Arabian, which began in the seventh century A. D.,
and culminated in the conquest of Islam; 2. the Aramaic, from the
fifteenth to the thirteenth century B. C.; 3. the Amorite, a thousand
years earlier, 2400-2100 B. C., and 4. another, a thousand years
earlier when Babylonia was eid by the Semites.

This thousand year disgorging theory has been adopted by many
English and American writers. In Paton’s words: ‘‘Thus it
appears that it took a thousand years each time to fill Arabia up
to the point when it could no longer hold its inhabitants but must
disgorge them upon the adjacent lands.’’ In addition to the four
migrations assumed by Winckler, Paton adds the so-called earlier
Nabataean, which is placed as beginning about 500 B. C.?

Barton in his Semitic Origins (1902) developed the Arabian
theory in a more elaborate manner than previously had been done.
Even though one does not agree with the position taken by Barton,
he cannot help admiring his full and thorough treatment of the
subject. Not only does he look upon Arabia as the cradle-land of

1 For the literature on the subject, see Barton, Semitic Origins.
* Early History of Syria, p. 7, 211, ete.

II THE HOME OF THE SEMITES. 29

the Semites, but upon North Africa as the place of the ultimate
origin of the Hamito-Semitic races, which he claims are kindred.
After the migration of the Semites into Arabia, some of their
Hamitie brethren,-who until then had been nomads, displaced the
Negroids in the valley of the Nile, learned agriculture, and formed
the race of the Egyptians. His arguments for Arabia being the
home of the Semites, follow: 1. Semites are now in Arabia and in
contiguous lands, Babylonia, Syria, Abyssinia, etc., lands more
fertile than Arabia, in which agriculture has been practised from
time immemorial. 2. During the historic period, wave after wave
of Arabs has been pouring from Arabia into the surrounding lands ;
it is probable that the migration has always been that way, and not
vice versa. 3. It may be regarded as a law of social progress
that nomads pass from a sterile to a fertile country, and become
agriculturists; but not from a fertile to a sterile country, and
change from agriculturists to nomads. It is inconceivable, if Sem-
ites originated in a land more fertile than Arabia, that they should
have migrated thither. 4. The Arabic language, where the race
has been protected by deserts, has preserved the characteristics of
primitive Semitic speech much more fully than any other Semitic
tongue. 5. The Arabs, better than other Semites, have preserved
the racial characteristics of ferocity, exclusiveness, intensity of
faith, and imagination.

In his review of these successive waves, Luckenbill also adopted
the theory. He said the first wave from the desert of Arabia to
the north took the Babylonians of the Dynasty of Sargon about
2600 B. C. into the Euphrates valley, and they were perhaps the
founders of Phoenicia. The next wave brought the First or Ham-
murabi Dynasty into Babylonia, and the Canaanites into Canaan.
The next took the Aramaeans into Syria and Mesopotamia, and
their kindred tribes, the Hebrews, Amorites, Moabites and Edom-
ites, into Palestine ca. 1500 B. C.+

* This latter view is supported with linguistic evidence by Barton in
JAOS 35 214 ff.

* Biblical World 1910, p. 22; and AJSLZ 28 p. 154. It is only fair to
Luckenbill to state that in an article which recently appeared (AJT 1918,
p. 30), he accepts the view that the Hammurabi Dynasty is West Semitic.

30 THE EMPIRE OF THE AMORITES.

Macalister is another writer who has accepted these ‘stock’
views as facts. He says: ‘‘for though Arabia may breed vast
numbers of its nomad tribes it cannot support them; and though
the struggle for existence may be diminished artificially by the
inhabitants, by means of intertribal battles and, in ancient times,
of infanticide, yet a time comes periodically when necessity forces
its surplus population to overrun the more fertile neighboring
lands. The country, as has been noticed, comes into prominence
historically every thousand years, more or less.’’ (Civilization in
Palestine, p. 27.)

Although regarding the origin of the First Dynasty as Amorite,
King nevertheless looks upon Arabia as the cradle of the Semites.
He traces four great Semitic migrations. The first settled North-
ern Babylonia; the second, which was the Canaanite or Amorite,
took place in the third millennium B. ©. The third was the
Aramaean in the fourteenth century, which established its kingdom
in Syria with its capital at Damascus; and the fourth took place in
the seventh century of our era (HB p. 125).

It would serve no purpose to multiply quotations from writers
who share these views. Suffice it to repeat what is said above, that
most scholars have accepted these periodical waves of emigration
from Arabia as historical facts.

It is not the writer’s purpose to discuss or attempt to decide
between contending scientists concerning the ultimate origin and
gradual formation of the Semitic race, its separation from the
so-called Hamito-Semitic race, the millenniums required to develop
the striking racial difference, the conditions under which Semitic
characteristics developed, and all other anthropological inquiries
concerning the origin of Semitic society. The writer has waded
through masses of conjectures on these points, based almost
entirely upon hypotheses, such as Anthropologists must largely
confine themselves to, but he prefers to base his own conclusion
alone upon historical or archaeological data and traditions; which
of course leaves untouched the ultimate origin of this race.

Arabia is a land of great contrasts. One-half of the country is
composed of sandy deserts, with wide areas of shifting sand, where
water is difficult to obtain, and famine is always imminent. In

Il. THE HOME OF THE SEMITES. 31

many of these parts it is only after the spring rains that the soil
furnishes a meagre subsistence for the Bedouin. It should be
noted, however, that there is a river system which includes the
region of the wadies; but the rivers never reach the sea. These
in midsummer are dry. In such sterile places, no permanent settle-
ments can be looked for. Elsewhere, there are great and small
oases. ‘Then there are extensive fertile highlands and pastures.
In the great tropical districts on the coast of the Red Sea, the
Indian Ocean, the Persian Gulf, and in Southern Arabia, the land
of frankincense, myrrh, coffee, spices, and perfumes, there is natu-
rally all that is required for a great civilization. The same is true
also of the mountainous districts of Arabia.

The question arises in this connection, was the climate of Arabia
in ancient times the same as to-day? Hommel, who has made a
careful study of the work of the explorers of Arabia, says: ‘‘It is
safe to assume that in ancient times there was much more water
than at present.’ Ellsworth Huntington maintains that great
changes in the climate of Central Asia have taken place during
historic times. He has shown how great tracts of territory which
at one time were populated are at the present desert, or mitigated
desert, which supports vegetation only part of the year. He tells us
that ‘‘Syria and Northern Arabia, from three to five hundred miles
south of Lake Gyoljuk, present phenomena almost identical with
those of Central Asia. Mr. F. A. Norris, a member of the Prince-
ton Expedition to that region in 1904-5, states that a large number
of ruins lie in the desert in a location where to-day there is no ade-
quate water supply, and where it would be impossible to secure
sufficient water with the system of irrigation employed when the
ruined cities were in their prime. Elsewhere the water which
appears formerly to have supported oases is now saline. The ruins
date from the beginning of the Christian Era.’’ (The Pulse of Asia
867 f.) This change of climate, Huntington claims, has been
observed to have taken place also in the Sinaitic Peninsula, and
even in Egypt.

If the desert portion of Arabia in ancient times was less sterile

°“Arabia,’’ in Explorations in Bible Lands 694 ff.

32 THE EMPIRE OF THE AMORITES.

than at present, and the wadies, which are so clearly defined in cer-
tain parts of the land, contained water for at least the greater part
of the year, one can readily understand how tribes with great flocks
would pass into this country even from the north. It is only nec-
essary to take into consideration the fact that great Bedouin tribes
at present occupy these sterile districts in the seasons of the year
when rains, for the time being, restore fertility; after which they
move to silior parts where subsistence is possible.

As history has made us acquainted with the fact that in the
earliest period there were permanent cities or habitations of
peoples engaged in agricultural pursuits, the question as to whether
the nomad preceded the agriculturist, or vice versa, belongs to the
sphere of anthropology. Moreover, history and tradition make us
acquainted with a great nation, including nomadic tribes in the
northern regions of the Semitic world in the earliest period known;
and what is still more to the point, movements of the people east-
ward into Babylonia, and of the nomadic tribes southward into
Arabia.

The fact that the Arabic language preserves more fully the char-
acteristics of primitive Semitic speech, it seems to the writer, as it
has to others, is evidence only of the fact that Arabia was settled
by Semites prior to the time when the Semitic languages with which
we are familiar had suffered decay, or rather such modifications
as usually follow the development of civilization. The language of
Arabia, even at the present time, three thousand years later than
the period to which the earliest South Arabian inscriptions belong,
can be said to have retained many of the characteristics of primi-
tive Semitic speech which the other Semitic languages had lost
millenniums ago. The conditions of life in Arabia are responsible
for the permanency not only of language but also customs and
manners, which fact is so well understood. In the great centres
along the Euphrates, in Aram, or along the Mediterranean, which
were not isolated, as in Arabia, development was more rapid. As
an illustration, the English language of several centuries ago is
better preserved in parts of England less affected by such metropo-
lises as London. The most primitive French spoken at the pres-
ent time is not heard in Paris, but in isolated districts, which have
seen the least development. It seems to the writer that the lin-

Il THE HOME OF THE SEMITES. 33

guistic argument, so frequently used in support of the theory of
the Arabian origin, needs no refutation.

In connection with the argument that exclusiveness, intensity of
faith, imagination and ferocity are all racial characteristics of the
Semites, and that Arabs have better preserved them, it need only
be said, if this is correct, that the climate and other existing condi-
tions are responsible for the pronounced character of these pecu-
liarities of the Arabs.

The argument based upon the so-called waves of migration is the
one which is so cogently pressed by the advocates of the theory,
and is fortunately the one we can fully test by history and tradition.
To do so, it is necessary to ascertain, as the first step to be taken,
what characteristic features of civilization we can take cognizance
of that are peculiar to the Arabian.

Owing to the conditions prevailing in Arabia, little more than
cursory explorations have been possible, and these have often been
conducted under most trying cireumstances.® Nevertheless, during
the past century there has been a rich gathering of inscriptions,
dating, as some scholars hold, from about 1000 B. C., while others
maintain even an earlier date. A great antiquity, however, for
Arabian civilization must be assumed. Perhaps the earliest ref-
erence to the land in the Babylonian inscriptions is found in an
omen tablet and in the Neo-Babylonian Chronicle which record the
successful expedition of Naraém-Sin against the land of Magan, and
the taking of its king captive, whose name was Mannu-dannu.
(King Chron. II 51 f.) Magan is regarded by some as being in
the Sinaitic Peninsula; but by others as a part of Kastern Arabia,
which region is more accessible to Babylonia. A little later, Gudea
mentions having transported heavy blocks of diorite from Magan
(VB I p. 66, etc.).

The Arabian inscriptions, above referred to, came from four
chief nations, the Minaeans, Hadhramotians, Qatabanians and the
Sabaea-Himyarites.. It is by the help of these inscriptions that
considerable knowledge of ancient Arabia has been gained. For
the present discussion of the Arabian theory let us note some of
the names of the chief gods contained in these inscriptions, as well

*See Hommel, ‘‘Arabia,’? in Explorations mn Bible Lands.

34 THE EMPIRE OF THE AMORITES.

as the composition of the personal names, in order to test the claim
that the civilization of the Amorites, Hebrews and Babylonians had
its origin in Arabia. |

The chief deity in these inscriptions is the god ‘Athtar, who is
the personification of both the morning and evening stars. It is
generally thought that the god ‘Athtar and the goddess Ashirta or
Ishtar were originally the same deity. Some hold that Athtar
was the earlier form, but see Chapter XVII. The second deity in
importance is the moon-god, who has a different appellation among
each of the four peoples mentioned. The Minaeans called him
Wadd; the Hadhramotians called him Sin (doubtless, borrowed

from the Western Semites) ; among the Qatabanians he was named

‘Amm; and by the Sabaeans, IImaqqah or Almaqu-hti. The third
deity of the South Arabian pantheon was called An-Kurah by the
Minaeans, Huwal or Hol by the Hadhramotians, and Anbay
(regarded the same as Nabi) by the Qatabanians. Sun deities,
who are always goddesses, usually with local names, tutelary
deities of cities such as Ta’lab of Riyém, the god Sami‘, Nasr,
Qainan, Ramman in Shibam (doubtless, to be identified with the
Rimmon of Damascus, or Ramman of the Babylonians), Hagir,
Dhi-Samwa, Dhaw, Motab-Natiyan, Niswar, Il Fakhr, Ziir, are
' some of the prominent deities mentioned in the inscriptions.’ In
short, these South Arabian inscriptions offer considerable material
on the deities of the land. And from our knowledge of the per-

manency of the manners and customs of the land it is safe to con- .
jecture that in the periods preceding that of these inscriptions the

religion very likely was in a general way practically the same.
The study of the personal names as an adjunct of the religious
ideas expressed in the inscriptions furnishes also valuable criteria,
since they indicate what deities the people worshipped.

It is scarcely possible that any one would regard the moon-god
Sin as of Arabian origin because the inscriptions show that he was
worshipped by the Hadhramotians, and because his name is prob-
ably connected with the mountain called Sinai and with the desert

™See Hommel ‘‘Arabia,’’ in Explorations in Bible Lands, 738 ff., and
Pilter ‘‘Index of the South Arabian Proper Names,’’ PSBA, 1917, 99-112,
115-132.

II. THE HOME OF THE SEMITES. 35

called Wilderness of Sin. And it is scarcely possible that any one
would regard Nabi as Arabian because of the name of the god
Anbay, worshipped by the Qatabanians, who is considered by some
to be the same. Hadad, whose name occurs in two inscriptions,
would scarcely be regarded otherwise than an importation. In
short, there can be no question but that these three gods are West
Semitic (see Chapter XVII).

We have seen that if movements of peoples have taken place,
there will be unmistakable evidence of them in case large groups
of personal names have been preserved; and that in the absence of
definite historical statements concerning conquests, invasions,
bondages, etc., no better evidence is known than that secured from
a study of the personal names. Having before us the elements of
the ancient Arabic civilization that we should expect would be
carried with the people if they migrated, as has been claimed, as
did the Amorites, Hittites, Cassites, etc., we inquire to what extent
have those which are peculiarly Arabic been transported to the
other lands, in these so-called five periodical waves of migration.
The burden of the proof, naturally, that such evidence exists, and
that these waves actually took place, lies with those who hold these
views; nevertheless, let us inquire whether there are any grounds
upon which these hypotheses can rest.

In searching for evidence in the Babylonian inscriptions and other
legends bearing on the early history of that land, we first note
that the legendary list of ante-diluvian kings of Chaldea handed
down by Berossus, shows that the names are Amorite® (see Chapter
VIII). The early dynastic lists, as we shall see, show the same.
In the votive inscriptions, the religious texts, the building inscrip-
tions, the seal impressions on tablets, etc., we look in vain for
anything that is characteristically Arabian. On the other hand,
the influence from Amurru, whose civilization is as old if not older

8 Syncellus gives two dynasties after the flood, the first he designates as
Chaldean, and the second Arabian; the names of the latter are: MapSoxevrys,
Mapdaxos, Sicyopdaxos, NaB.os, Tapavvos, NaBovvvaBos. It is thought by some
that this list is spurious serving the purpose of filling out the gap between
the deluge and the first king of Assyria. See Poebel UMBS IV 87. Cer-
tainly they cannot be proved to be Arabian. .

36 THE EMPIRE OF THE AMOBRITES.

than Babylonia, is much in evidence in the earliest historical period
(see the succeeding chapters).

In turning to the nomenclature of fs Babylonians of the early
period, alphabetically almost the first names that confront us are
those compounded with Abu, ‘‘father,’’ and Abu, ‘‘brother,’’
which are used instead of the name of a deity. Hommel,® followed
by Pilter,° Paton, and others, regard these elements as of South
Arabian origin. The writer sees no reason whatever for regard-
ing them otherwise than as common Semitic. Moreover, while
Abu is a very common element in Babylonian names, in fact in the
Name Syllabary published by Chiera over one hundred and fifty
different names are compounded with it, and it is found in nearly
a score of different West Semitic names in the Old Testament, as
far as is known to the writer, it has thus far only been found once
in the South Arabian inscriptions of all periods.’”

Some have been disposed also to look upon ‘Amm or Hammu,
‘paternal uncle,’ as Arabian; but even this seems to have been
generally given up, which is due to the fact that it is so frequently
met with in the West Semitic inscriptions, especially in the early
period (see Chapter XI).

The only attempt known to the writer at identifying an unmis-
takable Arabian deity as an element in names found in Babylonia
is in the case of wedum in Ahi-wedum. Pilter, apparently, follow-
ing Ranke (PN 63) reads Abi-wadum, and translates ‘‘My brother
is Wadd.’’ ‘To show that this is impossible it is only necessary to
quote other names constituted with this element wedum or edu
usually translated ‘‘the one,’’?’ as Wedum-liblut, Samas-wedum-
usur, Tabba-wedi, Tabba-edi, etc. (see Chiera UMBS 11,158). In
short, after searching for elements that can be said to be charac-

® Ancient Hebrew Traditions.

10 PSBA 1916, 153 f.

11 Biblical World XLV, p. 294. Paton also regards sumu, ‘‘name,’’ and
the imperfect of verbs formed with the prefix ya as characteristic marks of
Arabian Origin.

12 Even Pilter, who regards the names of the Old Testament compounded
with Alu as Arabian says: ‘‘Akhi meets us in the South Arabian inscrip-
tions but rarely ; ‘there is Akhukarib’’ PSBA 38 p. 156.

Il. THE HOME OF THE SEMITES. 37

teristic of Arabian civilization, no other conclusion can be arrived
at but that they are wanting.

In this connection it is proper to inquire what Hebrew tradition
has to say on the subject. The Hebrews looked upon Mesopotamia,
or the district between the Tigris and the Euphrates, as the cradle
of mankind. They also made the second beginning of man’s his-
tory to emanate from Armenia, in which country the ark rested.
It is an interesting coincidence that many Aryan scholars look
upon this region as the probable home of the Sanskrit group of
languages.

The writers of the table of nations in the tenth and eleventh
chapters of Genesis, in giving a history of the family which became
the nation Israel, felt the necessity of accounting for the divisions
of mankind after the flood, and of showing how the peoples were
related. The sons of Aram, the descendant of Shem, are: Uz, Hul,
Gether, and Mash. Hul and Gether have not been identified as yet,
but Uz is understood to represent the peoples of Job’s fatherland
in Arabia, not far east from Edom; and Mash represents the dis-
trict of Mashu, in which was the important city Ki-Mash™, or
Damascus (see Chapter XII). If Uz has been correctly identified
in North Arabia, we have here at least a distinct effort on the part
of the Biblical writer to account for the Arabians.

Another descendant of Shem, Arpachshad, begat Eber, whose
sons were Peleg and Joktan. Thirteen sons of Joktan are men-
tioned, who are understood to represent peoples of Arabia. In
other words, we have here another effort by the Biblical writers to
account for the origin of the Arabian nations. Their view is that
they emanated from the north. ,

The descendants of Peleg are given as: Reu, Serug, Nahor,
Terah, and Abram. Sarug, or Serug, is found to have been the
name of a district in the land of Aram; and Nahiri, or Nahor, is
close by Serug (see Chapter XI). Here the writer places the
home of the Hebrews, following the former current view.

It is needless to refer to the fact that modern criticism does not
regard the tenth chapter of Genesis or any other similar effort in
the Old Testament as having any historical value as regards the
origin of the races. No one would question that the separation of
the peoples referred to took place at a time very far removed from

38 THE EMPIRE OF THE AMORITES.

the historical period. But it must be conceded, at least, that the
writer or writers looked upon the Aramaeans as one of the nations
of a great antiquity; and that the view of these writers was that
Arabia was populated by people from the north. What traditions
they possessed, upon which their views were based, we, of course,
are unable to say. It would seem, however, that their opportunity
for knowing at least something about the early history of the Ara-
maeans, that is, their own ancient history, was at least greater than
that enjoyed by those modern scholars who begin the history of
Abram and the Hebrews with the exodus of the Aramaeans from
Arabia, or even Egypt, in the latter half of the second millennium
B. GC. The theories advanced from this point of view, which are
developed in a wonderfully ingenious manner, of course, do not
recognize even a modicum of truth in these legends concerning the
patriarchal home in Aram. Such views are maintained in spite
of the fact that history, archaeology, and philology have restored
for us the background for a Semitic civilization in this region with
an antiquity very much earlier than the period of the conquest;
and in spite of the fact that nothing has been revealed to substan-
tiate their theories. There is every reason to believe that when
the time arrives for the ruin-hills of this district to be opened up,
we shall become acquainted not only with a civilization as ancient,
if not more so, than any known at present, but also much evidence
to show that in the traditions handed down by the Hebrew writers
there are reflections of great value for the reconstruction of the
history of the Northern Semites. ;

The second wave of Arabs which is supposed to have brought the
Semitic population to Palestine, in the second half of the third
millennium, and.a great influx into Babylonia at the time of the
First Dynasty of Babylon, has received more attention largely
because of the excavations in Palestine and the great mass of
inscriptions found in Babylonia belonging to this period.

The theory that the rulers of the First Dynasty of Babylon were
of Arabian origin, which for a time many were wont to adopt, orig-
inated with the French scholar, Pognon (JA XI, 543), who merely
suggested, as early as 1888, that the dynasty might be either of
Arabic or of Aramaic origin. Two years later Sayce called atten-
tion to the name Ammi-zaduga, the tenth ruler of the First

Il. THE HOME OF THE SEMITES. 39

Dynasty, as occurring in the South Arabic inscriptions; and he
seemed to think that some of the names of the First Dynasty of
Babylon were Arabian. Hommel, to whom the elaboration of the
theory is due, later tried to show that all the names were Arabian;
but he admitted at the time that he thought ‘‘both Hammurabi and
his successors must have assumed Canaanitish names either for
political reasons with a view to conciliating their Canaanite sub-
jects, or possibly because they had married Canaanite wives and
thus condescended to show their love for them.’’ (Hebrew Tradi-
tion, p. 92.) Winckler, however, maintained that eight of the
eleven names are Canaanite, while two, Apil-Sin and Sin-muballit,
are Babylonian, leaving Zabium uncertain (Geschichte Israels
130 ff.). The view that the First Dynasty rulers were Canaanites
or Amorites, now seems to prevail, and that they were of Arabian
origin seems to have been given up.

Hommel also maintained that many of the foreign names occur-
ring in Babylonian inscriptions of this period were also Arabian
(Ibid. 110 ff.). Ranke, in his Personal Names of the Hammurabi
Dynasty, fully discussed the question of the Arabian origin of the
foreign names.!*= One can not help admiring Ranke in attempting

18 The hypochoristic atu attached to masculine as well as to feminine
names, because of numerous examples found in the Safaitic inscriptions
is regarded by him as a characteristic mark of their Arabic origin. But
most of the names to which this ending is attached are Babylonian. This
ending is also found in the Cassite period, when little foreign Semitic
influence was felt in Babylonia. Moreover, the names of the Safaitic
inscriptions, having an affixed ¢, with which they were compared, belong
to the period of our Christian era, from the second to the four century,
or later. The score and a half of other names, which are compared with
these Safaitic names, must be looked upon in the same light. And besides,
many of the elements are found in the Northwest Semitie inscriptions; -
which fact, however, Ranke noted. Nor can the comparison of about a
dozen names with those taken from Ibn Doraid (of the ninth century A. D.)
be taken seriously in this connection. This leaves eight of Ranke’s list
which he compared with South Arabic names; two of these, Nakarum and
Tinkarum, are compared with Jinkar, said to be an Arabic tribal name. Four
others, Abi-esuh, Ammi-zaduga, Jadah-tlu, and Jadah-halum, are compared
with Arabic names, but these are also well known North Semitic elements.

40 THE EMPIRE OF THE AMORITES.

4

to defend his teacher’s theory, but on close examination the stabil-
ity of the whole contention vanishes like the morning mist.

Not only are the rulers of the First Dynasty considered Amorite,
but also, as will be shown later, the contemporaneous dynasties
of Larsa and Nisin, and perhaps also of Erech (see Chapter VIII),
for West Semitic foreigners also sat on these thrones. And is
there any evidence of Arabic influence in the literature of this era?
As far as is known to the writer no trace of it has thus far been
observed.

What is true of Babylonia is also true, as shown above, of Assyria
about this time, for the early rulers also bear West Semitic names
(see Amurru, p. 140). It is interesting to note here that King
has recently commented on this point, in the words: ‘‘We may
assume that Assyria received her Semitic population at about this
period as another offshoot of the Amorite migration.’’ (HB
136 f.) |

Unfortunately up to the present time no inscriptions from the
Northwest Semitic peoples belonging to this period have been
found, except the cuneiform tablets in Cappadocia. We therefore
inquire whether there is any evidence to be gathered from the Cap-
padocian inscriptions for the supposed Arabic migration in the
latter part of the third millennium. The answer is in the negative.
Instead of Arabic, we find Amorite or West Semitic elements much
in evidence in their personal names, such as the gods Ashir or
Ashur, Ashirta, Shamash, Amur, Anu, etc. (see Chapter XII).

It has been asserted that the Semites who dispossessed the trog-
lodytes at Gezer, in this period, were Arabs. This is an assump-
tion pure and simple. The Amorites flourished in the Lebanon

This leaves Ratbum, which was compared with Ra’ab and Ra’ab-el, and
Zamzum, compared with Shams, the name of the sun-goddess. The latter
comparison needs no comment, and the former is a Hebrew name, ef.
Ra-’-a-bi-el, BE 1X 44:16 LE. In a note, two names which he later pub-
lished (BE VI, 2), JaSmah-el and Jaskur-ilu, are compared with SXNYDD
and ON Dv". The former, however, is also an Amorite name, and the
latter the writer cannot find in Pilter’s index of names, PSBA 39, 99 ff.
It should be noted that Ranke also suggests a comparison of the elements

sumu with the South Arabic MDD; zimri with WI; and ihi with PN’.

Il. THE HOME OF THE SEMITES. 41

region millenniums prior to this era, and geographically Canaan
was a part of Amurru in this period (see later Chapters). More-
over, the Semites, whose existence in Palestine has been noted
through the excavations, are very probably Amorites. This seems
highly probable when we take into account, as noted above, that
about this time three different Amorite dynasties had been estab-
lished in Babylonia; that Amorites had possession of Assyria;
and that it is not impossible that Amorites were responsible for the
dark period in Egyptian history which also synchronizes with this
period. Since we have no evidence whatever of an Arabian move-
ment at this time, it seems perfectly reasonable to assume that the
Semites, who dispossessed the cave-dwellers at Gezer and perhaps’
the dwellers on other hills of Palestine at this time, were of the
same stock, namely, Amorite.

After an examination of the eight names in the fourteenth chap-
ter of Genesis, Pilter concludes that four are probably Amorite:
that Bera‘ is an Amorite form of the Arabic bari‘a; that Birsha‘
is from a quadriliteral root in Arabic; that Shinab, which is synon-
ymous with the Babylonian Sin-abu, is Arabian; and that ‘Aner,
which was very likely ‘Am-ner, is also Arabian (PSBA 36, 212 ff.).
Even though the latter conjecture should prove correct, for which
there is no justification in any of the different forms of this name
in the versions, ‘4mm can only be regarded as common Semitic
(as above). If Shinab is a corruption of Sin-abu, the name can
only be said to be Babylonian. Further, no such personal names
as Bera‘ and Birsha‘ occur in the South Arabian inscriptions.
The writer thinks that it will be generally conceded that the effort
to show Arabian influence by these names is not very successful.

The name Abram, or in the fuller orthography, Abraham, which
for years has been regarded by certain scholars as Arabic, is not
found in the Arabian inscriptions. On the other hand, both ele-
ments of the name have been found in the West Semitic and in the
Babylonian inscriptions. About a decade ago Ungnad found the
name Abram (A-ba-ra-ma, A-ba-am-ra-am, A-ba-am-ra-ma), but
recently Lutz found the fuller form on a letter in the Yale Babylo-
nian Collection, namely, A-ba-ra-ha-am (EBL p. 5), which was
written in the era of the patriarch.

49 THE EMPIRE OF THE AMORITES.

Here also properly might be mentioned the Biblical tradition
concerning the descendants of Ishmael, the son of Abraham by
Hagar, in accounting for the Bedouin, who with a primitive and
patriarchal mode of life roamed over the deserts lying between
the Sinaitic Peninsula and the Persian Gulf. He was the father of
twelve princes or tribes who dwelt from Havilah unto Shur, i. e.,
before Egypt ‘‘as thou goest towards Assyria’’ (Gen. 25; 13-18).
Here also the tradition concerning the six sons of Keturah, the
second wife of Abraham, representing Arab tribes south and east
of Palestine, might be mentioned. These can only be regarded as
traditions which indicate that the Hebrew writer understood that
“the Aramaeans from the north had settled Arabia. The Midian-
ites also are regarded as the half brothers of Isaac and Ishmael. .

The third periodical ‘‘disgorging’’ period, according to Winck-
ler, Paton, Luckenbill, and others, is the so-called Aramaean, which
began about 1500 B. C., and lasted for several centuries. Before
this time it is claimed that no trace of the Aramaeans is found on
the monuments; the first sure sign of them in the Egyptian monu-
ments is the name Darmeseq for Damascus in a list of Ramses ITI
(1198-1167 B. C.). No credence, as noted above, is placed in the
Biblical tradition concerning the ancestral home of the patriarchs
in Aram. The conclusion follows that this is a mistaken theory
that was foisted upon Israel in the late period, and accepted by
them. The people we know as the tribes of Israel are regarded
by some as Arabs, who came out of Arabia, and by others as Ara-
maean nomads who lived in the desert south of Canaan, known by
the collective name of ‘Abraham.’ About 1200 B. C., they invaded
and conquered Palestine. They had no higher culture of their
own, but adopted that of the people they conquered. Isaac and
Jacob also were clans, not individuals. While there are those who
believe that an ‘Abraham’ people united with a ‘Sarah’ people
and entered Canaan as early as 2000 B. C., the ‘Isaac’ and ‘Rebe-
kah’ tribes were later waves of Aramaean migration which
absorbed the Abraham and Sarah people. The third wave was
‘Jacob,’ and the fourth was ‘Israel.’ Leah, which name means
‘‘cow,’’ and Rachel, ‘‘sheep,’’ are merely collective names for
the ‘cowboys’ and ‘shepherds,’ two main groups of tribes that
entered Canaan from the south and east respectively. Since the

Il THE HOME OF THE SEMITES. 43

discovery that there was a country named Musri in North Arabia,
it is claimed by some that Misraim, ‘Egypt,’ was confused with
it, and that this is the place, i. e., Musri in Arabia, whence the
Hebrews migrated. Others hold, in view of the fact that there was
a Goshen in South Palestine, that what is known as Israel entering
Palestine was a movement of some tribes from South to North
Canaan.'* There are, however, scholars who still believe that
Israel, or at least a part of the people, lived in Hgypt.

The evidence for this so-called Aramaean migration from Arabia,
which overflowed Syria and other countries at this time, as far as
the writer can ascertain, is confined to the references to the people
called Habiri in the Amarna letters, and to the conquest of Pales-
tine by the people we know as the Hebrews. ‘There may have been
other archaeological or historical evidences offered for the ‘‘dis-
gorging’’ of Arabia at this time, but the writer is unacquainted
with them.

If the Hebrews came out of Arabia at this time, it certainly would
seem that at least some hints of such a movement would be found
in the mass of literature about this period which they have handed
down. There is not a particle of evidence to substantiate the
idea that this movement was from Arabia; and it seems to the
writer wholly unnecessary to discuss extensively this question until
such has been produced. The story of Israel in Egypt, which land
we know received so many obscure tribes, its sojourn in Goshen,
the building of store chambers with sun-dried bricks, the references
to the Nile and to Egyptian life at court and in the home, the per-

sonal names of individuals, everything has the proper coloring and
is entirely true to what is known of the land. Not only is the
atmosphere correct in the account of the people’s residence there,
but also the references to Hgypt after they had departed and lived
in the wilderness, to which the narrator frequently looks back.
With the story of the sojourn in Egypt and in the wilderness in
our possession, and in the absence of even a single hint of any other
origin for the Hebrews who entered Canaan, the proof of the asser-
tions, which are so often set forth as historical facts, rests with

14 For a review of the literature on Israel’s conquest of Canaan, see
Paton, JBL 32, p. 1 f. (1918).

44 THE EMPIRE OF THE AMORITES.

those who make them. The present writer, until archaeological
or philological evidence is forthcoming to show that the contrary
is correct, is content to hold the view that the Hebrews, with the
civilization they possessed, would not have accepted in the succeed-
ing centuries such an account of the humiliating origin of their
nation, if it had not been fact.

The writer is cognizant of how modern criticism regards the
genealogical lists in Chronicles as well as in other books of the Old
Testament. Those in Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy,
and Joshua, with their hundreds of other details, may be looked
upon in the same general way; and yet if the Hebrews are of Ara-
bic origin, it seems that there would be some trace of this fact
found in these lists, especially as the nomenclature cannot be said
to be that of a period of the later or dual kingdom. We peer in
vain for those characteristic marks of what we know to be pecu-
liarly Arabian. It is quite reasonable to infer that the Hebrews
who came out of Egypt and who lived in the Sinaitic Peninsula for
a time should have intermarried with the dwellers of that region;
and it would not be in the least surprising to find in the nomencla-
ture that they handed down such constituent elements in their
names as would conclusively show such contact with the Arabs;
as, for example, we have so well illustrated in the Murashié
Archives, found at Nippur, where the contact the Hebrews had with
the Babylonians and Persians through intermarriages is so appar-
ent in the personal names. Even this has not been pointed out by
those who hold the Arabian theory, as far as is known to the writer.

If this so-called ‘Aramaean invasion’ received its name from
the fact that the Hebrews who entered Canaan are Aramaeans,
the designation is that of the Biblical tradition, for it regards
them as such. If, however, it is understood that these Aramaeans
are Arabs, who by reason of the crowded condition of Arabia, as
has been claimed, came forth from that land, the term is, to say
the least, confusing. Aram is not in Arabia.

The identification of the Habiri with the Hebrews, made simul-
taneously in 1890, soon after the discovery of the Amarna tablets,
by both Conder and Zimmern, has been ever since the subject
of considerable discussion. Not a few scholars have inclined
toward this view in one form or another. Some claimed that they

II THE HOME OF THE SEMITES. 45

represent the Hebrews entering Palestine; others, that they rep-
resented a portion of the people that left Egypt in advance of the
main body; still others maintained that they represented roving
bands of Hebrews from the wilderness. The present writer for-
merly inclined to the view that the Habiri represented the Hebrews
entering Western Canaan under Joshua, because, besides other
reasons, the chronology of this event synchronized with that of the
Habiri invasion.’®

The fact that ‘Zbrz could be properly reproduced in cuneiform
as Habiri, together with other considerations, seemed to make the
view appear reasonable. However, certain other facts make it
now possible, the writer feels, to explain their identity in another
way; namely, that the Habiri were mercenaries or subjects in the
service of the Hittites, perhaps Aramaeans; probably, however,
they may have been a branch of the Hittite-Mitannian peoples.'®

16 The writer in 1907 held that the late date of the Exodus based upon
the excavations of Naville at ancient Pithom rests upon inconclusive
grounds, as became evident from his own account of the excavations; and
that Thutmose III in every respect fulfils the requirements of the char-
acter, etc., of the oppressor portrayed. The name of the city called Ramses.
in the Old Testament, which was called Zoan in earlier times, very probably
was known by this name when the account was written, the same as the name
of the land in which Joseph placed his father and brethren (Gen. 47:11).
This view that Ramses II was not the Pharaoh of oppression was anticipated
by Ohr several years earlier. (See Light on the Old Testament from Babel
267 ff.)

1¢'The reasons for this conjecture are found in the writer’s Personal
Names of the Cassite Period, p. 42 f., which in brief are the following:
Not a few letters give evidence that the Habiri were identified with the
Hittites who were encroaching upon the land from the north. The dis-
covery by Winckler that in the Boghaz-koi tablets there is a list of deities
which had wddni ha-ab-bi-ri ‘‘gods of the habbiri’’ written at the close of
it, and in a parallel list slant SA-GAS, an ideogram standing for habbiri,
and a term meaning habbatu ‘‘plunderers,’’ shows the same. Unfortu-
nately, as far as is known to the writer, the text of the tablet or tablets has
not been published. (More recently the ideogram SA-GAS has been found
on temple records of the Larsa Dynasty, where it seems to refer to officials
or workmen living in Babylonia.) The occurrence of several personal
names found in Babylonian tablets of the Cassite period, which can be iden-

46 THE EMPIRE OF THE AMORITES.

In the Babylonian tablets of the Cassite period, besides Hittite-
Mitannian, Cassite names prevail. There are also a few Hlamite
names, besides small groups which represent other peoples, some of
which at present cannot be determined. The occurrence of the
foreign names in the nomenclature of this period indicates either
extensive migrations on the part of the Hittite-Mitannian and
Cassite peoples, or historic events of considerable importance,
accounting for the movement of these peoples. Naturally, the fact
that the rulers of this dynasty were foreigners whom we call Cas-
sites, accounts for the royal names and the many other Cassite
names. The presence of so many Hittite-Mitannian names is
better understood when we take into account the fact that the domi-
nant people in the Northwest at this‘time was the Hittite; and
that the Mitannian people had taken possession of Aram; which
is evident from the Amarna letters, and from other sources. There
is a striking fact to be noted in this connection; the Amorite names
so prevalent in the nomenclature of the previous period, namely
that of the First Dynasty of Babylon, have very generally disap-
peared,'” at least this is the case in the thousands of documents
already studied. In other words, migrations of the Amorites into
Babylonia, so conspicuously noticed in nearly every other period,
are absent at this time. Foreign Semitic peoples do not seem to
be in evidence in this era. And in particular, it should be added,
the influence from Arabia in this period, as indicated by the nomen-
clature, is nil, at least as far as has been observed. If, therefore,
Arabia was sending forth at this time, as has been claimed, one of
its periodic waves of hungry tribesmen into the more favored
regions round about, they must have avoided Babylonia. In short,
the inscriptions of Babylonia offer no more evidence of a move-
ment from Arabia at this time than can be shown from any other
source.

tified as being Hittite-Mitannian, namely Ha-bi-ri Ha-bi-ir-sit, and perhaps
Ha-ba-ru, point to the probability that this designation was identified
in some way with those peoples. These facts make it reasonable to look
upon the Habiri not as Hebrews from the desert, but as being peculiarly
related to the Hittites, if they are not Aramaeans.

17 See Clay, BE XIV, XV; UMBS II, 2; and PN.

Il. THE HOME OF THE SEMITES. AT

Several of the Amarna tablets speak of another people employed
or utilized in the same manner as the Habiri, namely, the Suti.
These are said to be nomads of the Syrian Desert. In one letter
they are mentioned with the Habiri as supporters of Namiawaza
(No. 195); and in another, Dagan-takala appeals to be delivered
from the hand of the Habiri (Sa-Ga-as) ‘‘the robber people’’
(améliti ha-ba-tr1), and the Suttii (No. 318). Probably the Suta
were Semitic mercenaries, and the Habiri were Hittite.

In connection with the proposed identification of the Habiri
with Hittites, attention might be called to the name of the city of
Hebron, where the children of Heth lived, and from whom Abraham
bought the cave of Machpelah. The name of the city in Abra-
ham’s time was Mamre, and it is also referred to as Kiryath-Arba.
Later it was called Hebron. It is not impossible that the name
Hebron (Hebron) is a formation on 6n (=dGn) from the word
Habir(t), like Shimshén from Shemesh. Moreover, the city
received its name in the period of Hittite ascendancy.

The so-called Nabataean or fourth wave of migration need not
detain us long. The Nabataeans are a people living in Edom in
the latter part of the last pre-Christian millennium. It is thought
mar Na-bat-a in a letter of Ashurbanipal’s time (Harper ABL
305), refers to an individual from this nation, whom Streck regards
asan Aramaean. Others seem to think mét Na-ba-a-a-te in Ashur-
banipal’s Annals refers to the country of the Nabataeans, and is
perhaps to be identified with Nabaioth, the son of Ishmael. Gen.
25:13. It will be noticed that at least two of the few names identi-
fied with the country at this time, namely Ha-za-el, the father of
U-a-a-te-’, king of Arabia, and Bir-Da-ad-da,® the father of
U-a-a-te-’, are Aramaean; perhaps the name U-a-a-te-’ is also
Aramaean.

The extant names of the Nabataean inscriptions which belong
to the first century B. C., it is claimed, contain more Arabic than
Hebrew and Aramaic names. It is thought that the Nabataeans
pressed upon Hdom from the adjoining land, east of that country,
and made Petra their chief city. Even though it could be shown

18 Ashurbanipal’s Annals VIII: 2.

48 THE EMPIRE OF THE AMORITES.

that the majority were Arabs who used the Aramaean language,
this fact would hardly justify the statement that Arabia, the cradle
of the Semites, was sending one of its thousand year periodic
waves over the surrounding lands.

No one would deny that Islam as a military power in the seventh
and eighth centuries of the Christian era overran the Near Hast,
and even parts of Europe, and established its civilization where-
ever it went; but this is not to be accounted for as being due to
Arabia being overcrowded, but because of lust for loot and power.

No one would attempt to deny that Semites from Arabia have
constantly filtered into Syria. Many entered to range during cer-
tain seasons of the year, like the ‘Anezeh or Ruwalla peoples at
present, or as the Midianites did in Biblical times; while others
naturally were attracted to the cities and to the agricultural dis-
tricts. After the Jews had been carried into exile, the Edomites
pressed into their lands in the south of Judah. Petra, about 300
B. C., fell into the hands of the Nabataeans. The Decapolis was
created as a Greek league to promote interests in trade and com-
merce, and also for mutual protection from the surrounding
peoples. In the first century of our era, the Beni Jafna migrated
from Yemen, and some centuries later founded the Syrian dynasty
of the Ghassanides; and later on, Islam overran this part of the
world. All such movements towards this highly delightful and
fertile region, called ‘‘God’s land’’ by Thutmose III, were per-
fectly natural. Peoples came from all directions. But neverthe-
less the origin of Semitic life in Amurru is not to be explained as
resulting from such incursions. We have knowledge of too many
other movements into the land, as the Hittite, Mitannian, Philis-
tine, etc., to be misled with such a conception of the land’s history.
Every fact bearing upon the subject in the early references to the
land of Amurru, as will be seen in subsequent chapters, points to
it as a home of the Semite, reaching back into prehistoric millen-
niums, with a civilization of no mean character; and indicates also
that from this land Semites radiated in all directions. Moreover,
as stated above, the ultimate home of the Semitic race belongs to
anthropology, and is a question which there is no desire to discuss.

Tn conclusion, the writer simply wishes to ask those who continue
to maintain this theory to satisfy themselves as to why the fair

Il THE HOME OF THE SEMITES. 49

lands of Amurru and Akkad, with their attractive climates and fer-
tile lands, a veritable ‘Garden of Eden,’ where the oldest civili-
zations of which we have knowledge are to be found, should have
been dependent for their inhabitants upon such a breeding place
as Arabia. In short, from whatever point of view this theory is
examined, it is found wanting.

TET

THE COUNTRY AMURRU

The chief lands in which the Semitic peoples of ancient times
have lived are located in that great parallelogram roughly bounded
by the Taurus Mountains, the Tigris River, the Persian Gulf, the
Indian Ocean, the Red Sea, the Isthmus of Suez, and the Mediter-
ranean. .

The northern part of this territory, known as Syria and Meso-
potamia, is fertile, as well as stretches of lands along the coast on
the lower part of the Red Sea, the Gulf of Aden and part of the
Persian Gulf. A considerable portion of the balance of the terri-
tory is barren, but yet it is dotted here and there by small and large
oases of great fertility.

The only time this great stretch of territory was united politi-
cally was when Islam dominated it. In other eras, considerable
districts had come under separate rulers, but the Miexecies of the
land, with its great deserts, and mountainous districts separating
one part from another, was responsible for the lack of amalga-
mation or cohesion of the peoples, and for the breaking up of the
territory into separate and distinct provinces.

The northern part of this great Semitic world, at present called
Syria and Mesopotamia (or El Jezireh), and styled ‘the fertile
crescent,’ lies in a peculiarly central position between Africa and
Asia, as it were, although strictly a part of Asia. To the northwest
was Asia Minor, a gateway to great nations beyond—the Hittites,
Greeks, Romans, and many other peoples. To the north lay the
Scythians, and other nations whose influence and history is only
slightly known, many at present not even by name. The Assyrians,
Babylonians, Persians, Parthians, and other great peoples lay on
the east. In the south were the Arabs, a people of the same race,
also the Egyptians and Ethiopians; and on.the west the Mediter-
ranean. Syria has often been likened to a bridge with the sea on
the one side and the desert on the other, connecting Western Asia

(50)

Ill THE COUNTRY AMURRU. 51

and Africa. By reason of its position, the land has been the scene
of many invasions and contending armies during the past millen-
niums of its history. Here the Egyptians, Amorites, Hittites,
Assyrians, Babylonians, Persians, Greeks, Romans, Arabs, Turks,
and other peoples have contested for the supremacy of the land;
the last effort being that of the English and French against the
Turk and German. If the earlier history of the land can ever be
written, doubtless many other struggles of nations on this battle-
field will become known.

Amurru, with its diversified features of snow-capped mountains,
tablelands, fruitful plains, and tropical valleys, accommodated
besides the agricultural and pastoral Semites who abode in houses
and tents, various races, some of which lived even in caves of the
earth. In this way, nature fostered, in the compass of this region,
people of the mountains, valleys and cities, who led lives which had —
little in common. As a result, cave-dwellers lived in the hills of
Palestine to a comparatively late date; while doubtless the agri-
culturist and the Bedouin had flourished in the valleys and plains
about them for millenniums. Gradually, however, the cave-
dweller was supplanted by those who sought the hills on which to
build fortified places or walled towns, and in this way to protect
themselves against invaders.

Phoenicia and the cities of the Lebanon coast, due to the natural
products of the land, were especially attractive to sea-faring
peoples, resulting in a great admixture of races that produced a
peculiar type, whose contributions to the culture of the ancient
world were extensive. Syria with its Orontes, Euphrates, and
other rivers, and great stretches of plains, was the home of peoples
reaching back into a hoary antiquity.

The conditions from a geographical point of view throughout this
part of the Near East, are supremely favorable for an extended
and continuous occupation. The climate, the soil, the natural
highways offering communication in all directions, all suggest the
idea that it was a land that teemed with a great population in
ancient times. Its rivers, lakes and seas, its mountains and its cul-
tivated hills, where the vine grows in terraces and the olive tree
flourishes; its rich plains and valleys, all make it a delightful and

52 THE EMPIRE OF THE AMORITES.

highly desirable land in which to live, a veritable land ‘‘flowing
with milk and honey.’’ As Cicero said in one of his orations, the
country ‘‘is so rich and so productive that in the fertility of its
soil, and in the variety of its fruits, and in the vastness of its pas-
ture lands, and in the multitude of all things which are matters of
exportation it is greatly superior to all other countries’’ (Manian

Law V1).

IV
HXCAVATIONS IN AMURRU

Exxeavations have not been conducted as yet in the land of the
Amorites except in Palestine; and it would appear, from all the
light that we have on the subject, that this is the least important
part of the great Empire of the Amorites.

The story of the excavations in Palestine has been related many
times, yet it seems appropriate in this connection to mention briefly,
in a general way, some of the important results that bear upon the
subject under discussion.

At Tell el-Hesy, which lies on the edge of the Philistine plain,
the lowest stratum is thought by Petrie and Bliss, who excavated
at the site, to represent a period about 1700 B. C., and the upper-
most about 400 B.C. The city is referred to in the Amarna letters,
but not in the Egyptian inscriptions. It was taken by Joshua; and,
according to Chronicles, was fortified by Rehoboam. Besides
pottery and remains of walls, buildings, etc., a cuneiform tablet
written in the Babylonian language, and belonging to the fifteenth
century B. C., i. e., the Amarna period, was found in its ruins.

The city Gezer is mentioned on the Egyptian monuments as one
of the cities taken by Thutmose III, about 1475 B. C. Three of
the Amarna letters were written by its governor, Japahi. In the
book of Joshua we are told that its king, and the men with him who
came to the help of Lachish, were slain by Joshua. In the excava-
tions at Gezer, it is claimed that the two lowest strata are earlier
than anything found at Tell el-Hesy, and belonged to the Neolithic
age. Macalister, who conducted the excavations, holds that the
aboriginal dwellers were non-Semitic, of small stature; and that
they lived in caves. He thinks that the probable date of their
troglodyte dwellings is prior to 2500 B. C. The third and fourth
strata which lie immediately above are shown by the scarabs con-
tained in them to belong to the period from the XII to the XIX
Dynasties, i. e., from about 2000 to 1400 B. O. The city is fre-
quently referred to in the Egyptian inscriptions, and was occupied

(53)

54 THE EMPIRE OF THE AMORITES.

until the Christian era. The earliest inhabitants, the troglodytes,
Macalister holds, practised cremation, made pottery by hand, and
at times ornamented it. The Semitic people, who displaced the
old inhabitants, built a great megalithic high place, practised sacri-
fice of the firstborn and foundation sacrifice; had many varieties
of grain for food; were strongly influenced by Egypt, but much
less by Babylonia. Besides figurines, regarded as representing
Ashirta, two cuneiform tablets of the seventh century B. C. were
found at Gezer, and belonged to the later period, when Judah was
tributary to Assyria. |

The work of Sellin at Ta‘anach shows that the place may have
been occupied from about 2000 B. C. up to the time of Josiah, when
it was destroyed by the Egyptians or the Scythians. The two dis-
coveries of significance made at Ta‘anach besides figurines, are
eight cuneiform tablets, and a crude pottery altar of incense. The
tablets had probably been preserved in the pottery chest, beside
which some of them were found. It will be recalled that in the time
of Jeremiah (Jer. 32: 14) important writings were kept in earthen
jars. In not a few instances jars have been found in Babylonia
containing tablets. The building in which the tablets were found
may have been the residence of one, Ashirta-washur, to whom sev-
eral of the letters are addressed. Guli-Addi offers to send silver
to Ashirta-washur; and among other things calls on him to give
his daughter, when old enough, to the king (namely of Hgypt).
Ahi-Jami refers to some weapons he received; inquires whether
certain cities had been recovered; proposes to send a messenger
Aman-hashir (perhaps an Egyptian) ; and informs Ashirta-washur
that he will send on the morrow his brothers with the chariots,
a horse as tribute, presents, and all prisoners then in his hands.
Besides these letters, tablets containing lists of men, and other
fragments, make up the eight tablets discovered. It is understood
that these tablets belong to the same general period as the Amarna
letters; and if that is correct, the name Ahi-Jami, which is very
probably equivalent to Ahijah, is most interesting, since it con-
tains the divine name of Israel’s God, written Ja-mi. In the
Murashii archives found at Nippur, belonging to the reigns of
Artaxerxes and Darius, the divine element in Hebrew names is
written Ja-a-ma for Jawa.

IV. EXCAVATIONS IN AMURRU. 55

At Tell Mutesellim, which is part of ancient Megiddo, about an
hour northwest of Tell Ta‘anach, Sellin devoted two years to exca-
vating. Megiddo was captured by Thutmose III; it figures with
Ta‘anach in the Amarna Letters; was fortified by Solomon; and
was the place where Ahaziah died, and Josiah lost his life. Besides
buildings, walls, pottery, bronze and stone objects, etc., that were
discovered, two seals were found. The one was a jasper seal stone
bearing a Hebrew inscription, ‘‘to Shema, servant of Jeroboam,’’
who is considered by some to be one of the two Hebrew kings who
bore that name. The other seal bore the name of Asaph.

At Sebastiyah, the ancient Samaria, the expedition of Harvard
University was able to excavate during parts of three seasons.
Here a large palace was found built upon native rock, which is
believed to be the palace of Omri. This was later extensively
enlarged, and the walls faced with white marble. This is believed
to have been the work of Ahab, who is said to have built an ‘‘ivory
home’’ (I Kgs. 22: 39). Ina building on a level with this palace
about one hundred potsherds were found containing some of the
earliest specimens of Hebrew writing known. The ostraca are
memoranda for wine and oil which had been stored, containing the
names of the sender and receiver, amounts, name of place whence
it came, and the date. The year of the reign is given, but unfortu-
nately not the name of the king. An old city gate of the Israelite
period, ruins of other buildings of later periods, and other remains
were uncovered.

More recently, Ain Shems, the Biblical Béth-Shemesh, not far
from Der Aban on the railroad between Jaffa and Jerusalem, was
excavated by Mackenzie, in 1911 and 1912. The war brought to
a close other excavations that were being conducted at Balata, near
Nablus, the Biblical Shechem, and on the Ophel at Jerusalem.
Besides these operations, other excavations of a private character
have been conducted from time to time by scholars and travellers
through which important results have been obtained.

The results of these excavations that have a bearing on the pres-
ent discussion belong naturally to the early period. Through them
we learn about the massive city walls, the plans of the houses, the
kinds of weapons and utensils the people used; something about
their foods; and the stock they raised; about their religious

56 THE EMPIRE OF THE AMORITES.

beliefs and practices; their methods of burial; the state their art
had reached; and about their intercourse with other nations. It
is by the help of these facts that we draw our inferences for an
understanding of the civilization in this part of Amurru.

It must be admitted, however, that if it were not for the light
that contemporaneous records and the Old Testament throw upon
the early period, these excavations would give us little conception
of the civilization that existed in the land. The excavations con-
ducted in the hills of Palestine, important as they are in throwing
light upon certain phases of the early life of the land, and its con-
tact with the surrounding nations, nevertheless furnish us with
little understanding of the actual occupation of that region by Sem-
itic peoples. The excavations conducted at Tell Mutesellim, a
part of Megiddo, for example, have not furnished materials from
which it is possible to draw any adequate picture of the civilization
of that city. It is only with the light that we obtain from such a
list of booty taken after the fall of the fortress, as that given by
Thutmose III, that we begin to appreciate how that district
swarmed with life in ancient times. The same is true of the tale of
Sinuhe, which throws such a flood of light upon the civilization
north of Palestine, about 2000 B. C. (see Chapter XIV). Should
fortune favor us with light on Palestine of the same era or earlier,
we shall doubtless find, notwithstanding the fact that cave-dwellers
lived in the hills, and other foreign peoples were in evidence, that
the country teemed with Semites in permanent agricultural settle-
ments; a people who possessed great herds, and who had attained
unto a very fair civilization, exactly as the traditions of the Old
Testament lead us to believe they possessed.

Without any desire to minimize the importance of the results of
the excavations, we cannot help expressing great disappointment
in not finding more written records of an early period, such as are
found in Egypt and Babylonia. The earliest writings discovered,
besides the few cuneiform tablets, are the ostraca, above referred
to; the so-called Calendar Inscription found at Gezer, probably
going back to the ninth century; the Moabite stone, the Siloam
inscription, and a few minor inscribed objects which follow in point
of time. | .

The results of these excavations have led many scholars to con-

IV. EXCAVATIONS IN AMURRU. 57

clude that the Semitic peoples of Palestine in the early period pos-
sessed only a low type of civilization, and were without the
knowledge of a written language of their own. True, in the
Amarna period they admit the Babylonian language and script had
been used for diplomatic and inter-commercial purposes; and some
even think that the early portions of the Old Testament were
written in this language. Although on the highway between Egypt
on the one hand, and Babylonia-Assyria as well as the countries
to the north, on the other, and the scene of many battles and con-
flicting forces, Palestine was nevertheless removed, and in a
measure isolated, from the great centres of the Semites. Even, if
the city Humurtu, which thrived in the third millennium, was the
Gomorrah of the Old Testament, as some have inferred, and was
situated in this district, we have no other evidence of activity here
on the part of the early kings of the East, except the campaign in
the days of Amraphel. But although the civilization in Palestine
may not have been developed as that of the region to the north and
the northeast, unquestionably it was of a vastly higher order than
that indicated by the archaeological remains that have been
unearthed at the several sites excavated.

While the Amorite empire lasted, the efforts of the Babylonian
conquerors were usually concentrated on the Mediterranean and
Mesopotamian districts, where the old and more important Sem-
itic centres of civilization existed. These were the favorite regions
for invasions, as is evidenced by the inscriptions; but unfortu-
nately, as mentioned above, excavations in these parts have not as
yet been undertaken. All the light that can be thrown upon the
early history of the country is gathered from contemporaneous
sources, and inscriptions of a later period. Everywhere in this
broad land the ruin-hills of the past can be seen. On the plain
between the Lebanons, along the sea, in the region between the
rivers, and notably along the Euphrates can be numbered thou-
sands of sites, many of which when opened up to the light of day
will reveal the data whereby the history of the Amorites can be
reconstructed; and that empire of the distant past, which has been
known heretofore only through descendants of those that have sur-
vived its destruction, will take its place in the galaxy of nations
that belong to the dawn of history.

Vv
THH RACES OF AMURRU

Situated in such a central position, Amurru, into which poured
different races from all sides, and for so many generations, was
occupied by a people which doubtless ethnologically represented a
great mixture, and among whom were found more than one distinct
type.

Our present knowledge does not permit us to approach with any
degree of accuracy the difficult problem of the distribution of the
different Semites throughout the great parallelogram which they
occupied. It is however possible to refer at least to three distinct
types, which may be called the Arabian, Canaanite, and Aramaean.

The modern Bedouin, according to anthropologists, seem to form
a homogeneous unity with little mixture of strange elements. They
are regarded as pure descendants of an old Semitic race. They
are dolichocephalic, have dark complexion, and a short, small and
straight nose. This may be said to be the Arab type. Penned up
as it were in Arabia, a country that did not experience so many
invasions, the type of the Arab Semite, it would seem, has changed
little in millenniums. Even if tradition is correct in making
Mesopotamia the home of the Semites (see Chapter II), the Arab
having lived for so long an era in his land very probably represents
the purest type, because the admixture with other races could sik
have been so great.

With the exception of the impression gathered from the Old
Testament that the Canaanite was tall in stature, we are indebted
to the Egyptian monuments for our knowledge of the physiognomy
of the Canaanite-Amorite. These monuments are especially rich
in representations of the dwellers of this part of Amurru. From
a study of the characteristics observed upon these monuments it
would seem that this race of Amurru, produced by the great mix-
ture of races that existed along the Mediterranean from a very
early era, was looked upon by the artists as a clearly defined type.
He had broad shoulders and was tall in stature. His head was
large and dolichocephalic or long headed; it was somewhat narrow

(58)

Vv. THE RACES OF AMURRU. 59

like that of modern tribes living in the Lebanon district. The fore-
head was low and retreating; the nose had a distinctly aquiline
curve. Large brows overshadowed their blue or dark eyes. The
high cheek bones stood out from their hollow cheeks. The lower
part of the face was square and somewhat heavy; and was usually
concealed by a thick and curly beard, which was pointed. The lips
~ geem to have been comparatively thin, and a mustache was rarely
worn. The hair of the head was either shaved off, or it was allowed
to grow long and worn in frizzed curls, hung back of the neck.
Women wore their hair in three masses, the largest thrown over
the back while the other two dropped on either side of the face upon
the breast. |

At Abu-Simbel the skin of the Canaanite-Amorite is painted yel-
low, by which the Egyptian intended to represent a white people;
their eyes are blue, and the beard and eyebrows red. At Medinet
Habu the skin is painted rather pinker than flesh color, according
to Petrie; and in a tomb of the Eighteenth Dynasty at Thebes,
it is white; the eyes and hair being light red-brown. At Karnak
the skin of the figures is alternately red and yellow.

The Egyptian monuments throw considerable light upon the
dress of these Canaanite-Amorites. The peasant, or one from
the lower class, usually represented as barefooted, wore either a
loin cloth similar to the Egyptian, or he is found wearing a white
or yellow shirt with short sleeves, extending below the knees. The
hem of the shirt was generally embroidered. The noble or upper
class man wore a similar shirt, but over it a long piece of cloth
which after passing closely around the hips and chest was brought
up over the shoulder, and formed a sort of cloak. This was made
of a thick rough wool material and was embroidered with bands,
lines, and circles. The color and design were conspicuous. ‘Two
large shawls, one red and one blue, arranged so that the colors
would alternate, were sometimes substituted for the cloak. A soft
leather belt gathered the folds about the waist. A cap and a hand-
kerchief held by a fillet were worn; sometimes a wig, and red
morocco buskins, completed the dress.1

1The above description of the Canaanite-Amorite is based on Petrie
Racial Types; Sayce Races of the Old Testament, and Early History of
the Hebrews p. 20; and Maspero The Struggle of Nations p. 149 ff.

60 THE EMPIRE OF THE AMORITES.

Efforts have been put forth by some to show from these pictorial
representations that the Canaanite-Amorites were Indo-Huro-
peans; others have declared the type to be distinctly Semitic, and,
as above, represented at the present time by peoples in the Lebanon
district. Doubtless the tallness of the stature and even other
anatomical characteristics resulted from the race mixture that the
type represents, and which the artist recognized. Taking every-
thing, however, into consideration, it is not at all improbable that
the type that was predominant in this region, though partially Sem-
itic, represented much that was foreign and perhaps aboriginal.

In Northern Syria there is found at present another type, which
may be called Aramaean, also having a striking uniformity, nearly
all the heads being brachycephalic. The Armenians and other
peoples of Asia Minor show the same uniformity. Investigations
have led to the conviction that in early times the country was inhab-
ited by a homogeneous and extremely brachycephalic race.2 The
type depicted on the obelisk of Shalmaneser and the Lachish
relief of Sennacherib, it would seem, portray this race; and it
would hardly be possible for a modern sculptor to produce a more
characteristic representation of what is regarded as the well known
Jewish type of today. The Egyptian sculptor of Sheshonk also
portrayed Israelites who were subjects of Rehoboam, but he gave
them the characteristic Canaanite features. As is known, about
fifty per cent of Jews living at present are brachycephalic. Since
tradition points to Aram as the home of the Israelites or Jews of
ancient time, it is reasonable to assume that they are to be grouped
with what is called Aramaean.

The question arises, did the dweller in the Euphrates region rep-
resent another type? The status of the early period found in
Sumer and Akkad furnish us with material for the study of these
people, but besides showing that the Semites wore beards, and
knowledge concerning their dress, little of value for the subject
under consideration is gained from them.? The only statue we
have of a ruler designated as Amorite is that of . . . -um-Sham-
ash, king of Mari; but this is headless.

*'Von Luschan Ausgrabungen in Senschirli.
® See Meyer Sumerier und Semiten in Babylonien.

VI
THE LANGUAGES AND WRITING OF AMURRU

The language of Amurru was Semitic. There can be no question
that there were many non-Semitic languages in the land, but as
far as can be determined at present, in spite of the opinion held
by some scholars, it can be said that the prevailing language in all
eras was Semitic. The chief evidence of this fact is obtained
through a study of the personal and geographical names of the
country belonging to every period, early and late. The elements
compounded with the names of Amorite deities fully determine
this; in fact, our knowledge of the early Amorite language is prac-
tically dependent on the study of the personal names.

Chiera in a recent volume of inscriptions published an important
syllabary which contained a long list of Amorite names, represent-
ing doubtless individuals who had migrated from Amurru into
Babylonia (UMBS XI,1). By astudy of the Amorite names con-
tained in the cuneiform literature as well as this syllabary it is
possible to acquire not only considerable knowledge concerning the
religious ideas expressed by the people in the giving of names, but
also most important lexicographical and philological material. In
fact, some of the roots lost in Hebrew have left their traces in these
names, many of which become explicable by the help of the cognate
languages, while others remain undetermined. It is possible to
construct at the present time a fair-sized vocabulary of Amorite
words of the early period, simply from personal names.

Many names in Cappadocian tablets, with the help of this knowl-
edge, prove to be Amorite. The same is true of many in the
Amarna letters, and even in the Hgyptian inscriptions. All these
facts make it impossible to follow those who hold that not only the
Philistines and Phoenicians but also the Amorites were pre-Hel-
lenic invaders from the Aegean Islands, including Crete.

The question then arises, since we are familiar with a number
of different groups of Semitic languages, to what branch does the

(61)

62 THE EMPIRE OF THE AMORITES.

language of the Amorites belong? Besides the Babylonian and
Assyrian, which are now called by many Akkadian, we know two
other branches of Semitic languages in the north, namely the Ara-
maic and the Hebrew. What may be called the Amoraic, or the
language of the Amorites, is the parent of all these branches. An
examination of the philological material furnished us from the
many Amorite names on Babylonian tablets, prior to 2000 B. C.,
and those from the few tablets belonging to the early part of the
second millennium B. C. as well as the Amarna letters, and the few
tablets found in Palestine, show that the language closely resembles
Hebrew.

The language of the Babylonians and Assyrians, or the. Akka-
dian, the writer maintains came from Amurru, and under Sumerian
influence developed pronounced grammatical differences. This
Akkadian language having been later used extensively throughout
Amurru, in turn has left many traces of its influence upon the
Hebrew and Aramaic. It is a question whether the language used
in Syria at a much earlier period was carried into Arabia and
became what we now recognize as Arabic, or whether both are from
a source of which we have at present no knowledge.

There is great difference of opinion as regards the kind of script
used by the Amorites. Most scholars do not admit that the Wes-
tern Semites had a script of their own prior to 1000 B. C., when
they suppose the Phoenician alphabet to have been introduced.
Since in the middle of the second millennium B, C. the Babylonian -
language and script were used in Palestine, as is evident from the
Amarna letters and the Ta‘anach tablets, some hold that the earli-
est records of the Old Testament must have been first written in
cuneiform.

It must be admitted that writing is not mentioned in the Penta-
teuch until the time of Moses. Abraham instructed Eliezer what
to say to his people. When he bought a piece of ground, he called
the sons of Heth at the city gate as witnesses, although a document
may have been drawn up. Jacob sent messengers when he
entreated the favor of Esau; Judah in promising to make a pay-
ment, gave his staff and the jewel he wore on a cord about his neck
as a pledge. These facts, however, do not prove that writing was
not practised among the Aramaeans or Amorites. Even if those

VI. THE LANGUAGES AND WRITING OF AMURRU. 63

referred to could not write, we need only mention’ that scribes
hardly accompanied small nomadic groups.

If the single tablet at Lachish, and the few others at Gezer and
Ta‘anach had not been found, and the woman had not searched for
wood at Hl-Amarna, at present we could not prove that writing
was known at all in Palestine in the second millennium B.C. Asa
matter of fact, nothing has been found through the excavations
thus far to show that the people of Israel were literary even in the
first millennium B.C. Why is it that absolutely nothing has been
found in Palestine thus far contemporaneous to the writings of the
Old Testament to show that these writings actually existed in
ancient times. |

It is an acknowledged fact, from the antiquities discovered, that
Hgypt extensively influenced the civilization of Palestine. The
Egyptians conquered and ruled the land; and their script was also
known in Palestine. Nevertheless, besides such objects as searabs,
and a few steles, nothing has been preserved to show this. True,
we know the Egyptian princes in Palestine of the Amarna period
wrote to their masters in cuneiform; but was the language of
Hgypt, of which we ourselves have so much evidence upon the
monuments and on papyri, not made use of by its representatives
in Palestine? And while, as we said, we have not a serap of evi-
dence of the Biblical period from Palestine to show that any portion
of the Old Testament existed, down in Egypt at Elephantine a large
number of records have been found belonging to a Jewish colony
of the time of Nehemiah, which among other things refer to the
temple the Jews had erected there. In Hgypt, as is known, masses
of papyri have been preserved. In Palestine not a fragment has
_ been found; but its absence among the antiquities discovered cer-
tainly does not prove that it had not been used; for we know that
the climate has not been favorable to its preservation.

_ There are those who perhaps would concede that the Semitic
people of this district also used the Babylonian cuneiform script
for their own Amorite language, as did the Hittites, Mitannians
and the Vannic people for their languages. This, however, does
not seem reasonable in the absence of any proof whatsoever. If
the Amorites in Palestine had used the cuneiform seript for their
language, the excavations would certainly have yielded evidence of

64 THE EMPIRE OF THE AMORITES.

this fact—and not only a little evidence, but masses of it, in view
of their advanced literary achievements. And what is true of
Palestine and the rest of Amurru is true of Babylonia and Assyria,
where tens of thousands of Amorites have lived in many different
periods. Even in the time after it is assumed that they adopted
an alphabetic script, we ought to find evidences; for clay was an
ever ready inexpensive writing material, while papyrus or skins
required considerable time to prepare. There are many Hebrew
- words in the Amarna letters. Some (aside from the personal
names) are found in the Cappadocian and other tablets written in
the Babylonian language, but not a single tablet known to the
writer can be said to be written in Hebrew in the Babylonian script
or syllabary. Let us repeat. Other peoples, like the Hittites,
Mitannians, and Vannic peoples used the Babylonian syllabary
for their languages. This was known throughout Amurru, of
which we have much evidence. Why is it that not a single tablet
has been found as yet in Palestine, Mesopotamia, or Babylonia
written in the Hebrew language? The answer is, they had a script
of their own, which they used upon perishable material; which
fact is doubtless responsible for early examples of it not being
known at present. The high literary character of the earliest
acknowledged writings of the Hebrews, and even the earliest of the
Aramaeans, makes it wholly unreasonable to hold the view that
such arose in a comparatively short time, and that the people of
Amurru previously had no script of their own. A written and
literary language having a long history is certainly presupposed.
This great Semitic people, who have handed down an incomparable
literature, and whose system of writing was adopted by the Greeks
as early as 1200 B. C., or perhaps earlier, certainly had in more
ancient times a script of their own as well as their neighbors. A
marked development in the script is noted as having already taken
place prior to the earliest examples of the writing, and makes it
reasonable to conclude that it has a much greater antiquity than at
present can be shown by archaeology. Whether the early script
was more hieroglyphic in form, or had at least partially developed
into an alphabetic script, as had the writing of the Egyptians, who
had alphabetic characters in their system in the earliest period of
their history, cannot at present be surmised.

VI. THE LANGUAGES AND WRITING OF AMURRU. 65

Petrie in his excavations of the Egyptian temple at Serabit el
Khadim in the Sinaitic Peninsula found an inscription in unknown
characters, which dates from about 1500 B. C. Gardiner and
Cowley conjecture that the word b‘lt (ba‘alat) ‘‘goddess’’ occurs
in the inscription, on the basis of which they identify other charac-
ters and read a dozen or more words, and rebuild the old theory
of the Egyptian origin of the Semitic alphabet.

As is known, the Babylonian language was used in Amurru as
early as the third millennium B. C. At present there are no data
upon which to base an intelligent theory as to how and when this
language and the cuneiform script were introduced in the West.
We know that Babylonia in the earliest known historical period
had already come into conflict with Amurru. Etana, Shar-banda,
Gilgamesh, and others of this era, invaded the land. (See Chap-
ters VIII and IX.) The resources of the country, as well as the
loot that could be secured, were inviting also to Lugal-zaggisi,
Sargon, Naram-Sin, Gudea, the kings of the Ur Dynasty, and
others. But exactly what movement was responsible for the intro-
duction of the Babylonian language into that region is not known.
As it is impossible to state exactly why the use of the Aramaic lan-
guage spread all over western Asia, including Cappadocia, Baby-
lonia, Persia, and even Egypt, in the first millennium B. C., except
that in the Persian period it was the diplomatic language, it is also
impossible to determine what was responsible for the introduction
of the Babylonian as the international commercial and diplomatic
language in the previous and earlier millenniums.

Vil
THE NAME AMURRU OR URU

The word ‘‘Amorite’’ in the Old Testament has been as familiar
to Biblical students during the past centuries as almost any other
designation of ancient peoples, but with comparatively little under-
standing as to what the term meant. This is largely due to the fact
that the imperial history of the people came to a close prior to
2000 B. C.

The term ‘‘Amorite,’’ used in the Old Testament for a people
who lived in Palestine and the region east of the Jordan, as is gen-
erally understood, appears only with the gentilic ending and with
two exceptions always with the article, h@’améri ‘‘the Amorite.’”?

In the cuneiform inscriptions, the name of the land is written
phonetically A-mu-ur-ri-i", A-mur-ri-e, ™'A-mur-ri, A-mu-ri,
A-mur-ra, etc., and with the ideograms Mar" and ™‘Mar-Tu.2 In
the Egyptian inscriptions from the time of Seti I the land is called
’mr, which can be vocalized Amér, and refers to the district or
valley now called Beka‘, between the Lebanons (see Chapter XIV).

Since the cuneiform made no distinction between the uw and o
vowels, in view of the pronunciation of the name in Josephus,
*Apop(e)iu (Ant. I: 13, 1 f.), and that of the Hebrew, Greek, and
Syriac versions of the Old Testament, it is certain that the vowel
written wu in cuneiform was pronounced o, i. e. Amér. The doub-
ling of the r found in many of the forms is due to the long vowel
which precedes. In other words, Amurru=Amitru. Although the
vowel was pronounced o instead of the English w, Amurru will

1The LXX transliterated ’Apoppaor, ’Apoppe, ’Apapparor, "Appopeo, etc.

2 Other phonetically orthographic examples follow: In the time of
Ammi-zaduga there is a place near Sippar called A-mu-ur-ri-1 (Meissner
ABP 42:1, 21). In the Amarna tablets the name is written ”“A-mur-ri,
mat 4_my-ri, YA-mu-ur-ra, "*A-mur-ra, matati A-mur-ri, and matatt A-mu-rt
also ”*Mar-Tu. In the time of the Assyrian period the name is written
A-mur-ri, A-mur-ri-e, ete. (See Tofteen AJSLZ 1908 29 ff.)

(66)

VII. THE NAME AMURRU OR URU. 67

be used here instead of Amér and Amorro (u), because the name
is thus written in cuneiform, from which most of our material for
discussion is drawn.

The difficulties attending etymologies of ancient geographical
names are fully appreciated, for they may belong to an era far
remote from the one in which we may happen to have evidence that
they had been used, a notable example of which is the name under
consideration. They may have belonged perchance to former
invaders of the land, who were of another race, and who spoke a
different language; in this instance, however, this is not probable.
Some have held that the name signified ‘the mountaineer,’ since in
the Old Testament the Amorites dwelt in hills. This was sup-
ported by reference to the Hebrew word ’dmir, but this means
‘‘summit,’’ not ‘‘mountain.’’ Others have endeavored to show
that the word was of Sumerian or Assyrian origin; but in the light
of the facts of this discussion, this does not appear plausible.’

We know the origin of the geographical name Ashur (Assyria) ;
how the city Ashur gave to the country its name. We are familiar
with the history of early kingdoms in Babylonia, how Akkad
became dominant among the principalities, and the whole land was
called Akkad; and how later Babylon became the centre of a great
empire which bore the same name. It can be shown in many
instances that countries received their names through the ascend-
ancy of city states. Moreover, like every other empire, ancient
and modern, Amurru was governed from a centre, and this, as we
shall see, gave the country which it ruled its name (see Chapter X).

Amurru was not only the name of the country, but also the name
of the chief deity of the land, as were Ashur, Tilla, Mash, and
perhaps Anu (see Chapter XI). In consequence the name of the
god and the country will be discussed at the same time, but in each

5 Amurru is regarded by Langdon as an early Sumerian term for the
West land, kir-amur ‘‘land of storms,’’ written kir-mar-ur = mat abubi.
He holds that ™“*Mar-TU is to be read ™*mar-ri, a confusion of signs for
mata-mar-ri. (Babyloniaca VI p. 55). Haupt regards Amurru as an ancient
Assyrian name for the Mediterranean like yém in the Hebrew. He con-
nects it with Assyrian amirdénu and tamertu ‘‘reservoir,’’ and ammaru
‘‘abundance’’ (JAOS 38, p. 336).

68 THE EMPIRE OF THE AMORITES.

instance it will be indicated to which reference is made. Owing to
the weak consonants ’alef and mem in the word, which readily
suffer phonetic changes, the name appears in variant forms. If
it had not been for this fact, the writer would not have had the
privilege of presenting this work, for much of what is here offered
would have been known long ago.

Amér goes back to an original Amér, as Ashur is from Ashar.
The deflection of the a to 0 is a very common phonetic change. In
early and late Babylonian inscriptions there are Amorite names
compounded with the deity’s name Amar. In the early period, ef.
Galu-tAmar-Dingir which may be the Sumerian for Amél-‘El-
Amar; in the late Babylonian period,cf. Amar-ra-pa-’, Amar-a-pa-’,
Amar-na-ta-nu, Amar-sa-al-tt1; and in the Assyrian texts, Amar-
ma-’-a-di, ete. Because the deity “Amaru is equated with ¢Amar-
Utug(Marduk) (II R 54: 52g), and for many other reasons it
seems highly probable that the form of the name Amar is found in
this syncretistic formation from which Marduk has arisen. This
has been recognized long ago (see Amurru p. 120 f.).

As is well known, ”“Mar-tu and Mar" are ideograms of or rep-
resent the name Amurru; ¢Mar-tu and ‘Mar are also ideograms
for the deity Amurru. This would seem to indicate that Amar and
Mar are related; and this is the fact. As stated above, Amar-Utug
became Marduk and Amar-da became Marada. That the names of
the deity, ‘Mar and ¢Amurru are also identical, is conclusively
shown by a tablet recently published by Scheil (RA 14, 140), which
is a parallel text to one published by Virolleaud. Sar ‘¢Mar in two
passages of the former text is reproduced by Sar A-mu-ri-vm ‘‘king
of Amiri’’ in the latter text. And it seems reasonably certain
that the shortened form of the name is reproduced in the Biblical
Morwah, for which the Syriac version gives Amoriah, as well as the
Septuagint in the passage 2 Chron. 3: 1 (see below). It seems
therefore that no other conclusion can be reached but that Mar and
Amér are variants of the same name. Which is the older or orig-
inal, it is impossible to say.

The vowel of Mar is variously written in the deity’s name, the

*See Amurru p. 101. In name books the name is generally written with
the ideogram “SUR.

VII. THE NAME AMURRU OR URU. 69

same as in the name Ashar, Ashir, and Ashur. Besides Mar, the
name is written Mer, Me-ir, and Mur.

Mar (which, as above, =Amurru) is found very frequently in
early names as in “Mar and ¢Nin-Mar"'; i. e. the god and goddess
of the city Mar (see Chapter X). This form was used in late
Amorite names, and may be the origin of the Aramaic mar mean-
ing ‘‘lord’’.®

The name of the god written Mer and Mir was carried to Baby-
lonia in the earliest known period, cf. En-Me-ir-kar of the early
Erechian dynasty. In the obelisk of Manishtusu, the names
Anum-pi-Me-w and Il-ka-Me-ir occur. It is commonly found in
the Ur Dynasty, where about thirty different names are com-
pounded with it, as Mer-ka-gi-na, ete. In the First Dynasty it is
found in such names as ¢We-ir-a-bu-su, Warad-4We-ir, Ili-i-ma-
‘We-ir,® ete. It is found in the name T'ukulti-Me-ir, king of Hana
(TSBA 8, 352). It also is found in the syncretistic name I-tur-
Me-ir (see Chapter XI). In the syllabaries such forms with pre-
fixed ilu ‘‘god’’ occur, like J-li-Me-ir."

The form “Mur seems to be confined to the syllabaries of deities,
where, like other forms of the deity’s name, it is equated with the
sign “1M, indicating that it is a storm-deity like Adad. Moreover,
in the light of the above, the writer has no hesitation in asserting
that Mar, Mer, Mur® which are largely confined to the syllabaries,

° Cf. the Amorite names in Assyrian texts, Ma-ri-la-rim with Mar-la-
rim-me, ete. Other occurrences of the deity’s name in Amorite names ir
the Assyrian inscriptions are Mar-bi-’-di, Mar-ia-kin, Ma-ri-id-di, Mar-sam-si,
Mar-se-te-’, Mar(TUR)-su-ri, ete. Cf. also the occurrences in the personal
names from West Semitic inscriptions like Mar-barak (JIIVD), Mar-jehai
CFP), Mar-samak (JD), ete. Note also the name of a god or
demon, or rather a depotentized deity written NOON (see Amurru p.
162).

° See Holma Acta Societates Scientiarum Fennicae 45 3, 1: 13, 17.

“See CT 25 20:7; also I-lu-Mi-ir, CT 24 18:R2; and I-lu-Me-ir = 41M,
CT 29 45:24. Probably 7\9N of the Zakir inscription should be considered
in connection with Mer instead of Uru (see below). Cf. also W5= Pir’-
Mer or Pir’-Oru in an Aramaic letter, time of Ashurbanipal, Lidzbarski
ZA 31.

* Cf. Mu-ur and Mu-ru = 4IM (CT 24 32:119; 29 45:21-22); and also

70 THE EMPIRE OF THE AMORITES.

are variant forms of the same deity’s name, that of the storm-god
of Amurru? which had been brought into Babylonia; and that they
in turn are variant forms of Amar. :

The phonetic change of ’Amir(ru) = ’Awir = ’Ur, recognition
of which followed the writer’s discovery that Amurru was written
*Awuru or Uru, in Aramaic, ie., ’*wr (WN), needs no discussion,
since it is generally accepted by scholars. That is, "Amur and ’Ur
are identical. This is illustrated in the Talmudic word for
‘‘west,’? namely ’Or and ’Oria (NWN), which also means
‘‘twilight, evening’’; and the feminine 'Urta (NON) meaning
‘‘night.’? These terms doubtless had their origin in Babylonia,
where Jews experienced difficulty in trying to understand how ’Ur
(8) which ordinarily meant ‘“‘light’’ should also mean ‘‘dark-
ness, west,’’? etc. In the Talmud the question is asked, ‘Why is
the West called “Uria and ’Ur?’ The answer given is, because it
meant ‘‘divine air’’ (variant, ‘‘light’’), meaning Palestine.”
There can be little doubt, since the Babylonian word for ‘‘west’’
was amurré (also written martu), because the adjoining country
represented that direction, that the origin of the Talmudic words
Ur and ’Uria ‘‘west,’’? also ’Urta ‘‘night,’? have etymologically
to be explained as coming from Amurru or Uru.

In the early periods of Babylonian history, by the association of
sounds, scribes used different signs having a similar pronunciation
to represent the name of the god Uru. Following are some of the
signs used, all of which have the value wru, and all of which have
been used for the deity’s name.

IMy-u-ru-u — IM (CT 25 17:28). In each instance Mur is identified
with the sign that represents the chief Amorite storm-deity. Cf. also
4 tNIN-IM™™™ & (CT 25.1:7). CT 25 20:7 furnishes us with a very
interesting identification of 4 ™"*(™ IM with ¢ +/-meirTY7, To what extent
it will be necessary later on to read 47M —4Mur or 4IM-ra = Mur-ra
remains to be seen.

®° That Mer(Me-tr) is a reading of “47M, the storm-god, is clear from such
passages as CT 29 45:20; 24 32:120; 25 20:8, ete. In CT 25 20:8
d a-da-odT YM ig equated with 4 eir-meriTM{ 4+-IM. Perhaps this form of the
name is found in the Old Testament name Meri-ba‘al (9Y2°D) written
MepiBaad in the Septuagint (see 1 Chron. 8: 34, ete.).

10 See Jastrow Talmudic Dictionary p. 34.

VII THE NAME AMURRU OR URU. ta

HT Be "et ANE ET SAT ae

This is in strict accordance with our knowledge of the expedients
resorted to by the Babylonian scribes (see also under shar, Chap-
ter XVII). The sign for wru or ur meaning ‘‘servant’’ is used
as an ideogram and also as a phonogram in the deity’s names, Uru,
and Ur-ra or Ur-ra-gal (Amurrw p. 118). The sign wru meaning
‘‘brother’’ is employed in writing the latter name Uru-gal.' The
sign uru'? meaning ‘‘irrigation’’; the sign ur'® meaning ‘‘liver,’’
the ordinary stgn uru meaning ‘‘city,’’ (Amurru p. 113); the sign
uru'* meaning ‘‘whirlwind, city;’’ the sign BUR-BUR= uri
(Amurru p. 113), ete., are all used to represent the name of the
god Uru (—Amurru). In short, these many signs standing for the
pronunciation Uru or Ur as the name of a god in early Babylonian
literature, and also in the late syllabaries, where such obsolete
deities’ names of the past were preserved, unquestionably repre-
sented the name of the god under consideration.

While the name of the deity is found so extensively in the nomen-
clature of early Babylonia, it is seldom found after the fall of
Amurru, or subsequent to 2000 B. C. It occurs in the Amorite
names U-ru-mil-ki, time of Sennacherib (I R 38: 50), U-ri-wm-me-a
(III R 9: 54), and perhaps in a few other Assyrian inscriptions.
' As would be expected, it is more commonly used in the land
Amurru, for in the Old Testament Uri, Uriah, Urijah, Uriel, and
Shede-Ur are found, and it occurs in the name Melchior of the
Amarna tablets, written Muil-ki-U-ri and Mil-ku-ru. It is found in
the name U-ru-sa-lim (Jerusalem) (see Amurru p. 175). It is
found in one of the earliest Aramaic inscriptions, the stele which
Zakir of Hamath and La‘ash dedicated to El-Ur (719N),15 i. e.

4 Cf. also Uru«t«™o-8Mas (CT 24 10:8).

12 Of, ¢ erumUrum (CT 25 11: 26).

1 Cf. ¢ ™Nin-Ur (CT 25 1:8).

14 Cf. Uru“"-Tab (CT 25 20:17).

18 The name ?N found in a Phoenician inscription at Byblos as has
been suggested is the same as ’Ori-milki (= 7D) defectively written
but it contains the name of the deity. It is not improbable that the names

72 THE EMPIRE OF THE AMORITES.

Aloros. But what is more important in this connection than all
else, it is the name of the capital of Amurru, familiarly known as
‘‘Ur of the Chaldees’’ (see Chapter X).

To those unfamiliar with Semitic philology it may be difficult to
comprehend how this name could appear in these variants, but when
it is recalled that the Aramaic was written without vowels, and
that some Semites used m and others w to represent the same
sound,!® and that a weak consonant like w readily unites with a
homogeneous sound and forms a long vowel, the phonetic changes
become intelligible. Then also it must be borne in mind that most
of our data are found in the cuneiform script, and that for millen-
niums Amorites poured into Babylonia from Amurru taking with
them the name of this deity, which was written differently in dif-
erent centres by different guilds of scribes (see Chapter I).

Amar, Mar or Uru being an Amorite god, it is reasonable to
expect that his consort’s name would be written Amar-tu, Mar-tu,
or Ur-tu, like Ashir and Ashirtu, Anu and Antu, Mash and Mashtu,
ete. .

Recently the writer revived the explanation suggested long ago
that Mar-tu, the common ideogram for Amurru, is the feminine of
Mar.7 The usual explanation is that it is Sumerian, and means
‘‘the entering in of Mar’’ (the sign TU meaning erébu ‘‘to enter’’).
It is not impossible that Mar-T'u was selected by the Babylonian

Aréli (ONIN) and Ariél OONMN) of the Old Testament also contain the
name of "Uru (see Amurru p. 157). Ari— Amurru, according to the
ancient Babylonian scribe, ef. SAI No. 5328. The ideogram BUR-BUR has
the value Uri = Akkad and Ari = Amurru. Whether Uri and Ari must
be considered as related is of course a question; but the raising of the
question cannot be regarded as unscientific, as per Bohl, Kanaander, 39 f.
See also the discussion in the following chapter on Ar-data and Ar-wada,
also written El-data and Uri-wada respectively.

*° Cf. Amurru with WN (above referred to), Simanu with fD,
Shamash with WW, aralshamna with PWV, argamanu with PIN,
Nabi-rimannu with [)1)3), etc., a phonetic change well established, as
well as the complete omission of the m after it had become w in Assyrian. ,

‘7 The Biblical for Moriah seems to show that Martu actually represents
a pronunciation. Olmstead has called the writer’s attention to the classical
Marathias and ‘Amrit, which seem to show the same.

VII. THE NAME AMURRU OR URU. 73

scribes as an ideogram for the word representing the ‘‘west.’’ As
above noted the Talmudic ’Orta had a related meaning, and is
perhaps the feminine of ’Uria.

Some years ago the writer found endorsements scratched and
written with ink on Babylonian contract tablets of the Persian
period, which contained the name Nin-IB in the Aramaic charac-
ters, “nwst (W3N), for which it was proposed to read Enmastu.
Fully a score of different explanations have since been offered by
nearly as many different scholars.'®

Recently the writer had the good fortune to find also the read-
ing of the name in a Syllabary in the Yale Babylonian Collection,
which confirms his view that the deity was Amorite, and also that
it is connected with Mar-tu—= Amurru. The syllabary (MI 53:
288) reads as follows: .

ur-ta | IB | u-ra-su | Sa4Nin-IB su-ma
This means that the sign JB, called uwrasu, is to be read wr-ta, and
that it is ‘‘a name (or sign) of 4Nin-IB.’’ This seems to mean
that the complete name is to be read (N)in-urta® see JAOS 37

18 See Amurru p. 196 for a collection of the different readings and inter-
pretations, where the writer suggested an additional and what he regarded
a preferable explanation, based on the syllabary:

| ma-as | MAS | ma-a-su | “Nin-IB,

(B. 1778), and the fact that there were gods Masu and Mastu (K 6335).
More recent views follow: Langdon Liturgies 147 reads Enursat (Nin-
urasa); Pognon (JA 1913 p. 411) and Thureau-Dangin (RA XI p. 81)
Anusat; Hommel (in Krausz Gétternamen p. 59, n. 2) Nin-Numusda(?) ;
Maynard (AJSLZ 34 29 f.) Ur-ru-da; Albright (JAOS 38 197 ff.) Ninurud
or Ninurut which may become Ninurtu; and Nimurta, is explained as ‘Lord
of Armenia’ or as ‘Lord of Iron.’ The latest is that of Luckenbill (AJSL
35 59 f.), who inquires whether it isn’t clear ‘‘that MW IN renders the
cuneiform Mastu pronounced, however, Anu-Mastu? That is ‘‘the sign
usually regarded as determinative for deity is to be pronounced, just as
we find it rendered by i in J/-Ba’’ ete. The writer cannot follow Lucken-
bill in this since an means ‘high,’ ‘heaven’ in Sumerian, and dingir means
‘ god. ?

19 In spite of all Luckenbill has written (AJSZ 35 59 f.), the writer sees
no reason for modifying his view on this; see also Chapter XVII.

20'The view was advanced by the writer (JAOS 28 135 f.) that the first

44 THE EMPIRE OF THE AMORITES.

p. 328), but the initial n appears to have been dropped; like Isin
from Nisin. Although Inurta, who was unquestionably a goddess
originally, became a god in later Babylonia, traces are found show-
ing that her former sex was recognized. In a letter found in the
British Museum (Harper ABL 358: 6), and in one in the Museum
of the University of Pennsylvania (HAV p. 424) the salutation
repeats the name; in the former ‘Nin-IB ‘Nin-IB is written, and in
the latter “MAS u 4M AS, showing that both the god and the goddess
are addressed. Additional proof that ¢Nin-IB or Inurta is to be
identified with Amurru or Uru is to be found in the explanatory
list of deities.” :

In the Amarna letters there is a place Bit Nin-IB mentioned and
also a temple in or near Jerusalem called “Bit *Nin-IB; showing
that the deity was worshipped in that region. One scholar had
suggested that Nin-IB is here an ideogram for Shamash, and that
the place referred to is Béth-Shemesh. Another has suggested that
it stands for Antum, and the name is Béth-Anath. The only basis
for these suggestions is that such shrines are known to have existed
in Palestine; but this does not appear to have much force. Since
Antu was the consort of Anu, Ashirtu of Ashir, Mashtu of Mash,
ete., it seems reasonable, as mentioned above, that Urtu(a) should
have been the consort of the Amorite Uru. Since the name Jeru-
salem was written Uru-salim in the Amarna tablets and the same
in the Nabataean inscriptions (DOW ")N), there is every reason

two characters of the Aramaic represented the Sumerian en = ba‘al.
This finds support in the name En-Ur-ta (CT 24, 25:101) ; but, in the light
of the recent find, the prefixed element probably must be regarded as being
originally (n)in i. e., ba‘alat ‘‘lady,’’ although after the deity was mas-
culinized and the initial n dropped, it may have been construed as en
“‘lord’’; then since in the late period r frequently passes into §, In-urta
could be pronounced Jn-usta, which would be reproduced in Aramaic
*nwst (WI).

aid wrumUry (PIN) = Nin-IB Sa al-li, CT 25 11:26. Another passage
shows that ¢Nin-wru(PIN) = 4Nin-IB, CT 25 12:20; and again that
Amurru, written “Mar = 4Nin-IB, III R 57:81 ed. There can be little
doubt but that Nin-Mar* (ef. Nin-Mar*-ra, Allotte de la Fuye Doc. Presar-
goniques 55:1, 7), who was so prominently worshipped at Lagash, was
another writing of the name. (On Mar* see also Chapter X.)

VII. THE NAME AMURRU OR URU. 75

to think that it contains the name of the deity Uru (see Amurru
175 ff.), and it seems reasonable to propose that Bit “Nin-IB is the
cuneiform representation of a shrine of his consort, which was near
the city. That it appears in the Babylonian ideogram which means
ba‘alat Urta, is simply due to the use of the Babylonian language
and script at that time in Palestine.

The question arises, where is the habitat of the deity Amurru,
whose name was written Amar or Amur, Mar, Mer, Mir, ’Ur, and
his consort Martu (Mashtw) or Urtu. The answer to this question
will doubtless point to the imperial city of the great land Amurru
(see Chapter X).

VItl

AMORITES IN BABYLONIA

Since we are entirely dependent upon data gathered from con-
temporaneous records of Babylonia for our knowledge of the early
existence of Amorite history and civilization, these are first con-
sidered.

The Amorites have handed down a list of ten antediluvian kings,
corresponding to the ten antediluvian patriarchs. True, they are
called Chaldean kings, but they nevertheless are Amorite, the
legend doubtless having been brought into Babylonia with the
people who migrated from the West. Berossus, who lived in the
first half of the third century B. C., wrote three books which he
dedicated to Antiochus, king of Syria. Unfortunately, with the
exception of a few fragments copied by Apollodorus and Poly-
histor, and which were quoted by Eusebius and Syncellus, his
important work has been lost. The antediluvian kings mentioned
in these fragments are as follows.

1 *AXrwpos, Aloros; é& BaBurdvos XadSaios 10 Saren (86000 years)
2 ’AdXarzrapos, Alaparus, Alaporus, Alapaurus; filius Alori 3 Saren
3 "Aunrov, ’Autdrapos, Almelon; 6 é« IavriBuBrov, é«
modews ILavTi Bi Bras, ex Chaldaeis e civitate

Pautibiblon 13 Saren
4 ’Appevov, Ammenon; 6 Xadréaios, ex Chaldaeis e Par- .

mibiblon (Pautibiblon) 12 Saren
5 Meryadapos, Meyadavos, Amegalarus; é« ILavte8iBrov

TONEWS 18 Saren
6 Aawvos, Aaws, Da(v)onus; mrowuny é« TlavtiBuBXov 10 Saren
7 Evedwpayos, Evedwpecyos, Edoranchus, Edoreschus; é«

IlavtiBuBrov 18 Saren
8 “Apeuryrivos, Amemphsinus; Xaddaios é« Aapayyar,

Chaldaeus e Lancharis (Chancharis) 10 Saren

1 The list is taken from Zimmern KAT? p. 531.
(76)

VIII. AMORITES IN BABYLONIA. or 4

9 ’Orwaprns, Apdarns, Otiartes; Xadrdaios é« Aapayyor,

Chaldaeus e Lancharis 8 Saren
10 HucovOpos, LicovOpos, LoOpos,.Xisuthrus ; vids ’OQtvap-
TOU 18 Saren

Zimmern, Hommel, Jeremias, Sayce, Kittel and others, as men-
tioned in Amurru 63 ff., consider that several of the names were
translated into Hebrew, and form the list of antediluvian patri-
archs of the Old Testament, while others are considered equivalent
to Babylonian names. Aloros has been generally regarded the
same as the Babylonian mother-goddess Aruru,? who assisted in the
work of creation. The chief reason why this goddess is considered
the same as the first Chaldean king is because she is the ‘fashioner
of mankind.’ Alaporus has been considered to be a corruption of
Adapa, which is thought to be the original of Adam. Amillaros
or Almelon is said to be the Babylonian amélu, ‘‘man,’’ which was
translated, into the Hebrew, HEnosh, ‘‘man.’’ Ammenon is
regarded the same as ummdnu, ‘‘workman,’’ which was translated
into Qenan or Cain, ‘‘smith,’’ although no such personal name as
ummanu is known. Megalaros or Amegalarus is considered by
Hommel to be Amél-Aruru. Edoranchus, the seventh king corre-
sponding to Enoch, seventh in the Hebrew list, has been regarded
the same as En-me-dur-an-ki, a mythological king of Sippar, who
received revelations from his deity, and ruled 365 years, the same
number that Enoch lived. The king Edoranchus, however, ruled
64,800 years according to the list of Berossus. Otiartes has been
regarded the same as Ubar-Tutu, and as Atar-hasis (see also Bar-
ton A é B 271).

The writer believes that these scholars are mistaken in their sup-
position that the Hebrew names of the antediluvian patriarchs
originated in this way. Although both lists contain ten names, and
the tenth in both is a diluvian hero, they seem to have nothing else
in common (see Amurru 63 f.). The coincidence that the number
of years Enoch lived, and the Sippar king ruled, whose name is
written in Sumerian Hn-Me-Dur-An-Ki, is the same, is striking,

2 Poebel, however, has proposed identification of this name with LAL-ur-
alim-ma of Nippur. UMBS IV 1, 110.

78 THE EMPIRE OF THE AMORITES.

but any relation between the two individuals or their names is
scarcely to be regarded as possible. Moreover, since the other

names are in a Semitic form, it (Evedpaxos) would be preferable to

read it also Semitic, perhaps Hbed-’Ur ahu, i. e., ‘‘Ebed-’Ur, the
brother,’’ namely of the preceding king. Following in the second
column are the comparisons and identifications or equivalents that
have been proposed by different scholars, and in the third, those
offered by the writer:

1 ’Adwpos, Aloros Aruru El-Orv®

2 ’Adazapos, Alaparus Adapa Alap-Oru*

3 ’AmrAdapos, ’AunrAov, Almelon Amélu Amél-Oru®

4 ’Appevov, ArmMenon ummanu

5 Meyadapos, Amegalarus Amél-Aruru Megal-Oru®

6 Aawvos, Aaws, Davonus

7 Evcdwpaxyos, Edoranchus | EHn-Me-Dur-An-Ki = Ebed-Uru ahu
8 *Apeuiivos, Amemphsinus Amél-Sin Amél-Sin

9 Qrwprys, ’Apdaras, Otiartes Ubar-Tutu Ar-data*

10 ovbpos, Swovlpos, Xisuthrus

The fact that the names of these Chaldean antediluvian kings,
which the Babylonians recognized as their progenitors, are com-
posed of Amorite name elements besides five or six of them being
compounded with the name of the chief Amorite deity, Uru, is cer-
tainly striking proof that the Semitic Babylonian looked upon
Amurru as his original home.

From Amurru there went forth peoples who settled Babylonia
at a very early time. We are reminded of Genesis: ‘‘And it came

’ There can be little doubt that Aloros is El-Oru (see Chapter VII, etc.,
also see Amurru p. 64, spring of 1909).

4Friend or Ox of Uru; ef. SON a place name (Josh. 18: 28) ; pray
Samaria Ostraca; A-ga-al-Marduk BA VI 5 p. 83; Im-me-ir-r-li, tbid. 98.

5 No comment is needed on this identification.

° Cf. MY7D19 1 Chron. 8: 32 ete.

7 Cf. the place name Ar-data along the coast of the Mediterranean, men-
tioned several times in the Amarna letters, once written Hl-da-ta (139:5).
With this name ef. “Ar-wa-da (1bid. 101: 18, ete.), once written “Uri(U RU) -
wa-da (104: 42).

VIII. AMORITES IN BABYLONIA. 79

to pass, as they journeyed east (or from Qedem®) that they found
a plain in the land of Shin‘ar and they dwelt there’’ (Gen. 11: 2).
Babylonia was ruled during its long history by many foreign
peoples, the Amorites, Elamites, Cassites, Assyrians, Chaldeans,
Persians, Greeks, etc.? It seems from what follows that the Amor-
ites in more than one period conquered and ruled Babylonia.

More than a decade ago the obverse of a fragment of a tablet
was published containing the rulers of the Ur and Nisin dynasties
(BE 20, 47). The reverse of this tablet has since been published
by Poebel. This, together with two other tablets, also found at
Nippur in a fragmentary condition, contain the earliest known ~
rulers of Babylonia. It is supposed that when complete the tablets
enumerated all the kings from the time of the deluge to the time
they were inscribed. The one which was written apparently in the
reign of Hnlil-bani, the eleventh king of the Nisin dynasty, records
that king as the one-hundred and thirty-fourth from the deluge.
The other tablet, it is thought, was written in the time of DAamiq-
ilishu, the last king of that dynasty. (UOMBS V 2, 3 and 5.)

The first four kingdoms that have been preserved on these frag-
ments are Kish, Hrech, Ur, and Awan. Unfortunately none of the
rulers’ names of the last mentioned have been preserved. Prior
to the discovery of these tablets, even the existence of the dynas-
ties was unknown. The rulers’ names that have been preserved
of the first three, including variants, follow:

*'There are those who hold that they came from the country east of
Babel. Most scholars, however, translate miqqedem ‘‘eastward’’ or
“toward the east,’’ because of Gen. 13:11. A recently discovered frag-
ment of the Egyptian Sinuhe legend shows that the country east of Byblos
was called Qedem; and it is not unlikely that this region is meant as the
quarter whence the Semites referred to came, who moved into Shinar.

* In the period of 1902 years prior to the time of Alexander, Berossus
refers to dynasties consisting of 8 Median kings, 49 Chaldean, 9 Arabian,
and two others of 11 and 45 kings each (see Meyer, Geschichte des Alter-
tums I 2, 320) ; but there is no corroboration from the inscriptions of the
existence of these dynasties. Olmstead has called the writer’s attention to
the fact that in the Armenian translation of Eusebius, which, as is known,
ultimately goes back to Berossus, Mar is used in place of the usual Medes,
to which Schnable recently referred (OLZ 1911, 19 f.).

80 THE EMPIRE OF THE AMORITES.

Kinepom or KisH

9. Ka-lu-mu-un (Ga-lu-mu-un) ........ pipers bat Sap ae aay 900 years
10. Zu-ga-gi-0D. (Zw-Ga-ktAnd) o.oo cs eee ene eee ete eens 840 ‘‘
11. Ar-wu-u (Ar-wi, Ar-bu-um), son of a muskinu ........ Tae <2
12. E-ta-na (*H-ta-na), the shepherd ................005. Gas. =
Bo: nisi Nei a a en erat es PR rete air di tae bet 410‘
14. Hn-Me-Nun-na (En-Men-Nun-nad) .......0 00. e eee eee oe Sea
Bese ET RE aoa” I aa or Fly eaten t LS, eee eS Me ne a SOG -: 5+
Ss Oe Saal OE ROMY oF ees a rea | oan eee @ soda 1.200%"

Why RAPS 2 Al OA) eo BOUE 8055. eres ap Ses Sey Sie ad Sy on gees

Kinepom or Hanna (ERECH)

1. Mes-ki-in-ga-Se-ir, son of Shamash, high priest and king 325 years
fer: date eee SET COR Ne ies PR eS TURE ee Sy Coie 420 ‘*
3. 4Shar-bdn-da, the shepherd .............. Oe yrs SAR ee BaOOe x‘!
4. "Dymn-ot, the hunter trom - AGA 5 eo. ding ol ine Bees US. OO",
5. ?Gis-bil-ga-Mesh, son of the high priest of Kullab ...... 126: 5.

Kinepom or UR

A MIMO REE OAD vs acl der 4s, Sccaly Cae Sark ew lee ees 8 80 years
A NCE EE 7) Te. an es ST Se eer 5
Cee ae ir eta Us pain tla et rstaa, Sid Wir a SNS Reno eeee LAOH 25 **
Pe I i fi ER eee ee Gh nee Pec BAS aad BOT 36.57%

H CO DO et

The first five names, as well as others, are written in a Semitic
form; while the rest are in Sumerian. Al] that can be said of —
the first two names, Kalumun ‘‘lamb,’’ and Zugagib ‘‘scorpion,’’
is that they are Semitic. <Ar-wi-w (Ar-bu-uwm), according to
Chiera’s Amorite Syllabary, is Amorite. Poebel regards the
name Htana as Sumerian, and suggests as its meaning é (d), ‘‘the
ascender,’’ and anna, ‘‘heaven’’ (UMBS IV 1. p. 112). As a
meaning for the name of a human, this would be without parallel.
Moreover, this would be a title or epithet, and not the name of a
man. It seems to the writer that the name is unquestionably the
same as the Old Testament Htan, mentioned a number of times in
Chronicles and Kings and in the heading of the eighty-ninth
Psalm.?°

10 This has been anticipated years ago by Professor Jastrow, see BA III
p. 376.

VIII. AMORITES IN BABYLONIA. 81

Etana apparently was not of royal origin, for he was called ‘‘the
shepherd.’’ ‘‘He ruled all lands’’; which it is reasonable to inter-
pret as including Amurru. In the epic in which Etana is the hero,
which was inscribed in the Assyrian period, there are no earmarks
of its having been written originally in Sumerian. The early
Babylonian fragment in the library of Mr. J. Pierpont Morgan
shows the same. Further, the remark of Shamash, in the epic, to
the serpent, ‘‘go now and take the road to the mountain,’’ as well
as the part played by the eagle, point at least to a mountainous
district in which the myth originated. Perhaps Ktana, who was a
usurper, hailed from the West. Moreover, as mentioned above,
his name is West Semitic.

The name of his son and successor, which is read by Barton Pi-li-
qam (gam), is also West Semitic. Barton explained the name as
being Sumerian, meaning ‘‘with intelligence to build’’ (AB 267).
As a meaning for a personal name, this also would be without par-
allel. It would seem that a comparison with Pélég of the Old
Testament would be most reasonable. There are several other
names as Pi-la-qu in the Assyrian period, Bu-la-aq-qu in the Cas-
site, and Be-la-qu of the First Dynasty, that can properly be com-
pared. These words may mean ‘‘axe’’; but this would scarcely
be an appropriate meaning for a child’s name. The root palag
in Hebrew and Aramaic means ‘‘to separate, split.’’ Pélég,
‘‘canal,’’ is a branch stream, which is separated from the main
body of water. <A child could be referred to as a ‘‘branch’’ or ‘‘ off-
spring’’ of the deity. Names with parallel meanings are common,
like Por’-Amurru, ‘‘offspring of Amurru,’’ Band-Sa-Addu, ‘‘crea-
ture of Addu,’’ Apil-Nergal, ‘‘child of Nergal,”’’ ete.

It is to be noted that it is highly probable that the names of all
the known rulers up to this time, including the ten antediluvian,
are Semitic, and also that most of them are West Semitic or Amor-
ite. Following these, most of the known rulers’ names appear in
a Sumerian dress; but as stated in the introduction, this is no
proof that they were thus pronounced. In fact, there are many

“ The writer’s attention has been called by Olmstead to Phaliga on the
Euphrates, mentioned by Isidore, and the Pallacopas canal, with its survival
in Faluja, west of Bagdad.

82 THE EMPIRE OF THE AMORITES.

considerations that lead us to believe that these early rulers are
also Semites. |

The last two names of the Kish Dynasty, as well as three in the
following two dynasties, are compounded with the name of Mesh
(or Mash). This is the name of a deity whose worship was
brought from Amurru (see Chapters XII and XVII). The deity
En-Me-ir in the name En-Me-tr-Kar appears to the writer to be
another form of the name of Ba‘al Mer or Amurru (see Chapter
VII). The determinative for god is prefixed to the names of the
last three rulers of the Erech Dynasty, who, as is well known,
appear as deities in later periods.

The name Shar-bdan-da is generally read Lugal-Ban-Da,. and
regarded as Sumerian. Such names as Ja-wi(mz)-ba-an-da
(Ta‘anach 3:18), . . .-ban-an-du (ibid. 4: 18), “Mar-tu-ba-an-da
in a tablet bought in Aleppo (PSBA 1907, 97), Su-ba-an-du(dt)
(Amarna Letters) seem to show that it is West Semitic.!? The
fact that the sign meaning ‘‘son’’ was selected to represent the
sound ban would alone suggest this. Shar-banda figures as the
hero in the legend concerning the tablets of fate which the Zu bird
stole from the palace of the god Enlil. There is a distant moun-
tain, also prominently mentioned in this myth, called Sabu.

The two fragments of inscriptions dealing with events of the
time of Shar-banda and Dumu-Zi refer to wars with Elam on the
east, Halma (Aleppo) to the north, and Tidnum on the west
(OMBS V 20 and 21). In the early period Tidnum was a name of
the country Amurru; and Halma is to be identified as Aleppo (see
Chapter XII). This may be the earliest reference to an invasion
of the West, although, as mentioned above, Etana probably con-
quered Amurru.

Dumu-Z1, the fourth ruler of the Hanna kingdom, is considered
the same as the Semitic Tammuz, who in later periods was
regarded as the husband or lover of Ishtar. Besides this Sume-
rian form, the name is written Ta-mu-eu, Du-’u-zu, Du-u-eu, Tam-
mue (Hebrew), Thammodza (Syriac), Gappous, ete. The general

12 Tf this is correct, it would seem that the name of an official nu-ban-da,
frequently found in Sumerian documents, is also Semitic; in which case
nu may have been a determinative = amélu (CT 12, 35:1 b).

VIII. AMORITES IN BABYLONIA. 83

understanding is that the Sumerian Dumu-Zi, which means ‘‘true
or faithful son,’’ is the original form of the name. An enlarged
form of the name appears as Dumi-Zi-Ab-Zu, ‘‘faithful son of the
deep,’’ which some think has been suggested by the picture of the
sun rising out of the ocean. It is not improbable however, that
the two Sumerian signs, of which Dumu-Zi is composed, represent
the pronunciation of a Semitic name.

The name of Tammuz’ mother is written “Sir-du, and in the eme-
sal dialect, ¢Ze-wr-tu; which might represent a name like Sartu or
Sarah. Moreover the dynastic text shows that he was a usurper.
He is called a hunter or fisherman from the city H.A-A, probably
a city of the land Shubaru.t? In the Gilgamesh epic, which is
pre-eminently Semitic, the goddess Ishtar fell in love with Tam-
muz; and after his death, which was perhaps premature, she
decreed a yearly wailing for him. In the epic, ‘Ishtar’s descent
into Hades,’ the goddess, in her efforts to restore her youthful
lover to life, descends into the underworld. He is referred to also
in the Adapa legend as living in the heavenly place. It is not
unlikely that Adapa also will be found to be an early Semitic king
who had been deified.

The worship of the youthful god who personifies the dying of

*® Poebel has called attention to the name being written A-HA in BA
VI, p. 675: 25, and in SBH 80: 25, 26; that the city is mentioned in the two
texts above referred to, as being destroyed at the time of Shar-banda and
Dumu-Zi (UMBS ITV 1, p. 117) ; that in an incantation text (CT 15:6) the
ideogram is rendered Shu-ba-ri, and Shu-’a-a-ra in the above two texts (in
BA and SBH) which apparently point to the pronunciation Shuwari (for
Shubart) ; that in IT R 57, IV, the ideogram is glossed tuba; and that in
IV R 36, 1 col. I: 26-28 there are three cities written with the same
ideogram, which in each case was pronounced differently. He concludes
that the city referred to was in the southwestern part of Sumer, since in
tablets of the Ur dynasty a city HA-A is mentioned together with Erech,
Eridu and Ur, and in the above incantation text together with Eridu (see
UMBS IV 1, p. 121). It is not impossible that there was a city of Sumer
whose name was written HA-A; but it is altogether possible that another
of the three cities mentioned above, perhaps called Shubaru, is here referred
to, as indicating the origin of the ruler. Moreover, the city would scarcely
have been mentioned, in this connection, if it had been one close by Erech.

84 THE EMPIRE OF THE AMORITES.

vegetation under the summer heat each year, and who in the rising
in the spring time brings forth life with him to the fields and
meadows, is known to have existed from an early period among
the Semites. The yearly observance of the feast of Adonis at such
ancient centres as Byblos, in fact, it can be said, throughout the
Semitic world, has led scholars in former decades to look upon
Syria as the region in which the Tammuz-Adonis myth originated.
True, the early form of the name is Sumerian, as stated, as well as
that of his father ‘Nin-Gis-Zi-Da (eme-sal “*Umun-Mu(s)-Z7-Da),
and his sister “Gestin-An-na; but this is no criterion. The fact
that the myth is a common one in the Semitic world; that Tammuz
was a usurper from the city HA-A; that he figures in so many
other Semitic epics, and legends, as well as in Egypt (see Chapter
XIV and Miiller HM p. 120), favors a Semitic origin, with the
further possibility of a confusion of tales of several individuals to
form the Tammuz myth.

In Amurru, p. 79, and MI, p. 3, the writer endeavored to show
that Gis-bil-ga-Mes (Gilgamesh) was a West Semitic name, which
contains that of the god Mesh or Mash and that the epic was
peculiarly identified with the Lebanon district. More recent
researches confirm this, and point to the fact that the mortal com-
bat which Gilgamesh and Enkidu (also a Western Semite) had
with Humbaba, took place in Amurru (see below). .

It has been surmised for some years that Gilgamesh was an early
king of Erech. The early dynastic list, above referred to, proves
this conclusively. Aelian in a fable (De Natura Animalium 12:
21) gives the name of Gilgamesh’s grandfather, on his mother’s |
side, namely, Semachoros («vnxopos) which is Semak-Ur, a West
Semitic name, cf. Semak-Jau* of the Old Testament. He was sup-
posed to be the son of a priest of Kullab, a part of Krech, and Nin-
Sun, who was later deified. Unfortunately the name Nin-Sun is
in a Sumerian form, but if her father’s name is correctly given by
Aelian, she doubtless also bore a West Semitic name, which was
reproduced by this ideogram.

It was recognized years ago that the epic in the Assyrian was of a
composite character. Naturally it is not impossible that some of

14 That is WIND; cf. also WWDND".

VIII. AMORITES IN BABYLONIA. 85

the tales embodied into the epic were of Sumerian origin, although
at the present time this cannot be determined to be the case, as
there is nothing in the epic to show that it was originally Sumerian.
True, there are a few names like Gilgamesh, En-ki-du, Dumu-Zi,
Ubara-Tutu, etc., that appear to be written in Sumerian; but this
alone is not a criterion, as mentioned above, that they represent
Sumerians.

The name of Gilgamesh’s ‘double’ has heretofore been read as
if Semitic, namely, ?Ha(Hn-Ki)-bani(Du) and 4Ea-tabu(Diug) ;
but more recently scholars have been inclined to consider the name
Sumerian, ‘En-ki-du. This reading has been influenced by the
word en-gi-du, which occurs in a syllabary.'*® There are, however,
considerations which make it appear that the name was originally
Semitic, like the rulers’ names of the Erechian dynasty during
which Enkidu lived. This being true, an explanation is in order as
to how the name came to have been pronounced in Sumerian.

The discovery of two tablets belonging to a version of the Gilga-
mesh epic, written about fifteen hundred years earlier than the
Ninevite version, which are now in the Pennsylvania and Yale
Babylonian Collections, throws important light on several phases
of the question under discussion. The former, as shown by the
colophon, is the second tablet of the series, and the latter presum-
ably the third.'® |

The writing of the name in the Yale and Pennsylvania tablets
is “Hn-Ki-Dig, i. e., ‘‘En-Ki or Ea is good’’, which must have been
read 4En-ki-du, in view of the other readings. This offers no diff-
culty, as the apocopation of a final g is common in Sumerian. In
the late Ninevite version the name is written ?Hn-Ki-Du which
means ‘‘Hn-K1, or Ea, is the builder.’’> Both are common name
formations. If the hero was a Sumerian and bore a Sumerian

8 See CT 18, 30:10; also UMBS IV 1 p. 126; and Amurru p. 81.

1® Poebel, who was instrumental in the Pennsylvania tablet being pur-
chased, published an advanced notice of it in OLZ, 1914, col. 4. Langdon
subsequently published the text and a translation of it UMBS X 3. The
Yale tablet, as well as a translation of the Pennsylvania, will shortly be
published by Jastrow and Clay, in An Old Babylonman Version of the
Gilgamesh Epic.

86 THE EMPIRE OF THE AMORITES.

name, we unquestionably have handed down to us a peculiar mix-
ture of elements with different meanings. If, on the other hand,
we assume that he was a Semite, and lived at a time when names
were written with Sumerian ideograms, and that later, perhaps
following a dark period of literary inactivity, the legend was
revived when the original meaning and reading of the name were
lost sight of, we can understand how this confusion took place.
There are reasons for believing that Enkidu (or Ea-taébu) was
not only a Semite but that he came from Amurru.

The country whence EKnkidu came was mountainous. In the
Pennsylvania tablet the following passage occurs concerning Kn-
kidu. The mother of Gilgamesh, in speaking of Enkidu, says:
‘‘Some one, O Gilgamesh, who like thee is born in the plain, and
the mountain hath reared him, etc.’’ In the Yale tablet this pas-
sage occurs: ‘‘Einkidu opened his mouth and spake to Gilgamesh,
‘Know, my friend, in the mountain when I moved about with the
cattle to a distance of one double mile of the territory of the forest,
I penetrated into its interior to Huwawa, etec.’’’ Several passages
in the Ninevite version also show that Enkidu came from the moun-
tains. ‘‘Ere thou camest down from the mountains Gilgamesh
beheld thee in a dream.’’ Again, ‘‘Then came Enkidu, whose
home was the mountains, who with gazelles ate herbs, etce.’? The
fragments of the Ninevite recension which King published (PSBA
1914, 64 ff.), in which Gilgamesh, who was apparently wounded, is
advised to entrust himself to Enkidu’s guidance through the cedar
forest, read: ‘‘Let Enkidu go before thee. He knows the path
through the cedar forest. He is full of battle, he shows fight. Let
Enkidu protect his friend; let him keep his comrade safe.’’ These
and other passages show that Enkidu hailed from a mountainous
district, which contained cedar forests.

It is interesting to note that Dr. William Hayes Ward’s studies
of the art as displayed by the seal cylinders depicting Gilgamesh
and HEnkidu led him to believe that the myth preserved the
memory of its origin, not in the low swamps of Babylonia,
but in a land of hills and forests (Seal Cylinders, 62 ff., 414). He
observed that Gilgamesh in the early cylinders fights a bison, an
animal of the mountains and more formidable than the lion, but
that later the Babylonian artists affected the water buffalo of their

VIII. AMORITES IN BABYLONIA. 87

own region. HEnkidu, he also noted, always retained the horns
of the bison. In one cylinder (No. 177) containing the Gilgamesh
motif, Ward called attention to a cypress tree growing on a moun-
tain. The art therefore as well as the passages quoted above
indicate that Enkidu had come from a mountainous district.

In this connection, it might be mentioned also that in the art of
the seal cylinders, Enkidu though not as tall in stature, is
always represented as a duplicate of Gilgamesh. This is admir-
ably illustrated by a terra cotta relief found in the Yale Babylonian
Collection (see Art and Archaeology p. 73). This would make it
seem scarcely probable that one was a Semite and the other a Su-
merian. Moreover, they both have curly hair, and wear beards,
which is characteristic of the Semites as portrayed in Babylonian
art.

The story of the long journey that Gilgamesh and Enkidu made
to the cedar forest, which surrounded the stronghold of Humbaba,
has been supposed by most scholars to refer to Elam. The reason
for this view has not been that cedar forests are known to have
existed in that region, but because the name Humbaba had been
identified with the Elamite god Humba (also written Humban,
Humman, Umman, Umba, Amba, etc.). This has been done in.
spite of the fact that the name of the individual Humbaba, or
Hubaba, only slightly resembles the name of the Hlamitic deity;
for in every instance known the name of the former is written with
the final consonant doubled, while the latter is not.

The name Humbaba unquestionably is Amorite, and not Elam-
itic. This is definitely shown by the form of the name on a
tablet belonging to the Gilgamesh epic in the Yale Babylonian Col-
lection. In the Amorite Syllabary published by Chiera, there is
a name written Hu-wa-wa (HU-PI-PI). This name occurs also in
the Ur Dynasty tablets.1®° And it also occurs in an omen, following
one which mentions Hu-uwm-ba-ba (CT 28 6: 3-4). In the Yale
Gilgamesh tablet the name is written Hu-wa-wa, the same as in
the Amorite Syllabary. This as well as other reasons make it per-
fectly reasonable to conclude that the cedars referred to are those

6 BE 3 11:12; 147:5, HLC 1, 22, 26, etc., in Omen texts, CT 28, 21:8
ete.

88 THE EMPIRE OF THE AMORITES.

of the Lebanon district, which has frequently been suggested ;'" .
and which also prove that the name is the same as Kombabos
(KopBaBos), who appears as the guardian of Queen Stratonike in
the legend concerning the construction of the sanctuary at Hier-
apolis (Lucan De dea Syria), with which name Humbaba has
frequently been compared. Moreover, the name is actually found
also in the Old Testament Hobab,'* the son of Reuel (Numb. 10: 29,
J judg. 4:11, ete.).

In the omens, the name Huwawa a. a monster.!® Two of
the omens seis ‘Tf a women gives birth to a Huwawa, the king and
his sons will leave the city. Ifa sheep gives birth tora lion with
a face of a Huwawa, the prince will be without a rival, and will
destroy the land of the enemy.’’° In the epic the name of this
Amorite despot, ‘‘whose roar is a deluge, whose breath is death,’’
has the determinative for deity, the same as the name Gilgamesh
(which is written ?Gis) and Enkidu.

Since it is reasonably certain that the cedar forests of Humbaba
were those of Amurru, and this is the region whence Enkidu came,
it is highly probable that the latter also was an Amorite. This
being true, there can be little question that the Sumerian form of -
his name, as above, represented a Semitic name, which may have
been Hia-tob. This would appear very reasonable, especially if
the contention of Chiera that Ea is a West Semitic god should
prove correct. Jastrow would now propose the reading Ba‘ al-tob
as the Semitic original of the name; that is, Hn-Ki ‘‘lord of land’’
represents the West Semitic Ba‘ al.

As stated, the epic is not only Semitic, but there are many ele-
ments which show connections with the Western Semites, such as
the gods Girra, Urra, Adad, Irnini, Antu, ete., and personal names
such as Atrahasis, Buzur-Amurru, etc. Whether Gilgamesh, who

17 Gressman, Das Gilgamesh-Epos, p. 111, f. 1; Poehbel UMBS IV 1, p.
224; and Jastrow, Sacred Books and Early Literature of the East I, p. 193.

18 Hubaba = Hombaba = Hobbaba = Hobaba.

19 The passages where it occurs are CT 28, 3:17, 4:89, 6:3-4, 14:12,
21:28. I am indebted to Professor Jastrow for these references.

20 In the passage CT 28, 6: 3-4, both the early and late forms of the name
appear.

VIII. AMORITES IN BABYLONIA. 89

was a usurper, was from the West, or not, remains to be deter-
mined. If he were, the question arises, what was his western name?

In Amurru, p. 79, the endeavor was made to show that the name
which became contracted into Gilgamesh means ‘‘the axe of Mash”’
(see also MJ p. 3 n.). Such a name, however, would scarcely be
appropriate for a child. How is it to be explained? It is possible
to offer several conjectures; but let the following suffice.
The hero’s name may originally have been Bilga-Mash or Pilig-
Mash, and meant ‘‘the offshoot of the god Mash.’’ Such forma-
tions and meanings are very common (see the discussion on Pélég,
above). In later years, after he had become the legendary hero,
to whom were attributed the exploits of Enkidu, and perhaps
others, as is shown from the Pennsylvania tablet," his name was —
etymologically interpreted in accordance with the reputation he
had acquired just as is done in the Old Testament in the case of
Abram and others. It is only necessary to read the epic to see
how frequently the axe (or spear)?? is mentioned; it doubtless
played an important role as his weapon. In consequence, when in
later times the legend was committed to writing it was merely nec-
essary to place the determinative gis before Bilga. Still another, -
and perhaps more simple explanation of the name might be, that it )
means ‘‘Gish is an offshoot of Mash.’’ Unfortunately the signifi-
cance of Gish which figures so prominently as an element in names,
is not altogether clear; though the equivalent idlu ‘‘hero,’’ offers
a point of departure.2* Moreover, these are only tentative expla-
nations of this difficult name, which are offered with considerable
reserve. |

The earliest Amorite king, who by his inscription informs us
that he had conquered Babylonia, is . . . -um-Shamash, king of
Mari, and Patesi-gal of Enlil, which means that he was suzerain

21 See Jastrow in the forthcoming An Old Babylonian Version of the
Gilgamesh Epic.

22 Cf. the instruments held by two figures supposedly Gilgamesh and
Enkidu, on the terra-cotta relief found in the Yale Babylonian Collection,
see Art and Archaeology V p. 73.

23 On the element Mash, Mesh, etc., see also Chapter XVII.

90 THE EMPIRE OF THE AMORITES.

over the land. His inscription belongs to a very early period;
see further Chapter X. |

A number of the rulers’ names in the very early dynasties are
Amorite; for example, I-su-il of the Opis dynasty, El-muti of the
Kish. Doubtless all the rulers of these two dynasties were Semites
whose ancestors had come from Amurru. Eannatum, patesi of
Lagash, records in one of his inscriptions the coalition of the
Amorite city Mari with Kish and Opis against him, which he
defeated ; see further Chapter X. Lugal-zaggisi, the son of Ukush,
as mentioned, is considered by some to be a Semite. The tradition
concerning Sargon’s origin is that he was born in ‘‘Azupiranu
which lies on the bank of the Euphrates.’? The great conqueror
of Hlam and Barahsu, Uru-mush, bears an Amorite name.
The obelisk of Manishtusu of the Kish-Akkad dynasty contains
an especially large number of Amorite names. They are com-
pounded with the names of Adda, Mir-Dadu, Mir-Shar, I-lu-Me-ir,
Ba‘al, Bar-ra, perhaps Malik, etc. Contracts of this era are
known, but unfortunately Sumerian being generally the language
in which they appear, most of the names are written with Sumerian
ideograms, which make it in most cases impossible to determine
whether they represent Sumerian or Semitic names. Such a docu-
ment, however, as the Obelisk, which is written in Semitic, gives
reasons for believing that many Amorites lived in the land.
Recently Scheil published a cylinder seal belonging to the period
of the first kings of the Kish-Akkad dynasty, which bears the name
of Is-re-tl, son of Rish-Zunt, and which he equates with the Hebrew
name Israel.

More than a decade ago the writer advanced the idea that the
rulers’ names of the Nisin dynasty seemed to show that many of
them were Amorites (JAOS 1907, p. 8). The name of the founder,
namely, ISbi-Urra, also another containing the same deity, namely,
Urra-imitti, as well as others compounded with the names Dagan
and Ishtar, pointed to this conclusion. Recently Barton published
an oracle which shows that Ishbi-Urra, the founder of the dynasty,
came from Mari on the Euphrates (MBI 9: 4, 22), thus confirming
the view that the rulers were West Semitic. As mentioned above
(note 9), the Armenian translation of Eusebius calls the eight

* YIII. AMORITES IN BABYLONIA. 91

rulers of this period Amorite (Mar), instead of the usual
‘‘Median.’’ A date formula of a tablet belonging to the reign of
Libit-Ishtar of the Nisin dynasty seems to point to an interruption
of the dynasty of Ishbi-Urra by another Amorite named UR-In-
1 Bid .

The Larsa dynasty, which was founded about the same time as
the Nisin dynasty (see MI p. 41), was also Amorite, as is shown
by the names of the rulers. The Larsa dynastic tablet recently
discovered in the ruins of that city, and now in the Yale Babylonian
Collection, reads:

21 years Na-ap-la-nu-um
28 years H-mi-su
35 years Sa-mu-um
9 years Za-ba-a-a
27 years Gu-un-gu-nu-um
11 years A-bi-sa-ri-e
29 years Su-mu-ilu
16 years Nu-ur-4Immer
7(?) years ¢Sin-i-din-nam
2 years *Sin-i-ri-ba-am
6(?) years “Sin-i-qi-sa-am
1 year Szli-(lc)-47mmer
12 years Warad-4Sin
61 years ¢Ri-vm-4Sin
12(?) years ¢“Ha-am-mu-ra-bi
12 years Sa-am-su-t-lu-na, king
289 years.

24This date formula (C7 4, 22) has been the subject of considerable
discussion. Ranke read it: Mu sa In-bi-it-Istar A-mu-ru-um it-ru-du-us
‘‘The year in which the Amurru drove out Libit-Ishtar’’ (OLZ 1907, 109
ff.). Meissner translated it: ‘‘The year in which the city Amurum drove
out Libit-Ishtar’’ (cbid. 109 ff.). Ungnad translated it, ‘‘The year when
Lipit-Ishtar, the Amorite, was banished.’’ From the Ur-Nisin dynastic
list it is clear that Libit-Ishtar’s successor did not belong to the ruling
family. King suggests the date means that the Amorites who overthrew
the king were dislodged by UR-Inurta, who retook the city and established
his own family upon the throne (SA p. 315). It is not unreasonable to
maintain that UR-Inurta was an Amorite, perhaps from another quarter
than that whence Ishbi-Urra, the founder of the dynasty, came.

92 THE EMPIRE OF THE AMORITES. ~

Thureau-Dangin in a recent number of the Revue d’Assyriologie
has published an important rectangular prism, now in the Louvre,
which, if perfect, would have duplicated almost completely the
above, giving at the same time the formulae for all the years begin-
ning with Gungunu. The above list fortunately gives the number
of years which are broken away from the Louvre prism, and it
supplies the names of the rulers with the number of years they
reigned from Abi-sare to Warad-Sin.”° :

Some interesting observations are possible in connection with
these dynastic lists and what has been said above. We had no
knowledge of the first four reigns, and also of others in the list from
any source prior to the discovery of these important records,
although Naplanum ruled 21 years, Emisu 28, Samum 35, and
Zabaia 9. These names, as well as others that follow, are Amorite.
The time they ruled, namely, almost a century in length, is, there-
fore, one of those dark periods of inactivity, mentioned above.
HKiven the date formulae apparently were unknown when the Louvre:
prism was inscribed, for they begin with the reign of Gungunu.
This king is mentioned in the date formulae of the contracts that
have thus far been published; and he is also the first of the dynasty
who is mentioned in other known inscriptions. Hnannatum, a son
of Ishme-Dagan of Nisin, who was chief priest at the city of Ur,
has handed down inscribed clay cones, in which he records the
rebuilding of the temple of the sun-god at Larsa for the preserva-
tion of his own life and that of Gungunu, the king of Ur (SA
310 f.). This ruler, in a brick inscription, in which he commem-
orates the building of a great wall at Larsa, calls himself king of
Larsa as well as of Sumer and Akkad. The cones show that he

‘also ruled Ur.

*5 The Yale tablet contained the same inscription on both sides, but with
the exception of a few characters on the reverse, which happen to be very -
important in restoring the figures on the obverse, that side is broken away.
Unfortunately the numbers on the obverse also have suffered, yet it can
be restored nearly completely with the aid of what remained on the
reverse. For a full discussion of the Larsa date formulae see Thureau-
Dangin RA XV 1 ff. and Grice Chronology of the Larsa Dynasty (YOR
4, part 1).

VIII... AMORITES IN BABYLONIA. 93

Since the first four. rulers of this dynasty have left no traces of
their rule, except in the dynastic tablet and prism, perhaps they
sat on thrones far removed from Larsa, somewhere on the
Euphrates. The fact that their reigns were not of short duration
shows that they were not feeble rulers.

It has been held for many years by Hilprecht that there was
active hostility against Babylonia on the part of Elam at this time,
when UR-Inurta (‘Nin-IB) usurped the throne of Nisin. But
there is no justification for supposing an Hlamite invasion at this
time. It is, however, highly probable that the evidences of vandal-
ism which Haynes, who excavated Nippur, had observed beneath
the pavement in the temple of UR-Inurta were caused by the
Amorites, either when the dynasty was established or possibly
when a fresh invasion of Amorites displaced those who had pre-
ceded them. Gungunu of the Larsa Dynasty was an Amorite, as
the Amorite Name Syllabary shows. His reign synchronizes with
the long one of UR-Inurta. It is not impossible that both were
usurpers and represented a fresh influx of Amorites. Decades
later the Hlamites did appear on the scene, when Warad-Sin, fol-
lowed by Rim-Sin, sons of Kudur-Mabug, displaced the Amorites
at Larsa, and brought the Nisin dynasty to a close.

The dynasty of Babylon, usually known as the First Dynasty,
began to rule shortly after the close of Gungunu’s reign (MT p. 41).
The kings of this dynasty, as mentioned above (Chapter II) were
also Amorite.

Not only is the nomenclature of this period full of Amorite
names, but many bearing Semitic Babylonian names were devotees
of Amorite deities, as is shown by the impressions of the seals on
the tablets. This would imply that many of the Amorite names
were very likely Babylonized, which is understandable, as in many
instances it only involved a very slight change. This would indi-
cate that the Amorites were much more numerous than the nomen-
clature shows. But what is especially significant is the large
number of the devotees of Amurru, El-Uru, Adad, Nergal and other
Amorite gods, as indicated by the seals, not only from one site, but
from all whence tablets have come, Babylon, Sippar, Larsa, ete.
From the seal impressions on recently published texts coming from
Larsa, it would almost seem as if the chief deity of the people was

94 THE EMPIRE OF THE AMORITES.

Uru or Amurru. Even Rim-Sin, the Elamite, has handed down
a votive tablet in which he acknowledges doing obeisance to El-Uru
the god of the Amorites, in dedicating a votive inscription to him
(Yale Babylonian Collection, No. 7232). In short, the land was
filled with Amorites.

The name Ishki-Bal and others in the Sea-land dynasty may also
prove to be Amorite; but thereafter Amurru does not seem to have
figured very prominently in the affairs of Babylonia, except as a
field for gathering tribute. Doubtless, the brief Hlamitic suze-
rainty of the West, followed by that of Babylon, was responsible
for the disorganization which ensued.

IX

HARLY BABYLONIANS IN AMURRU ©

The records of Babylonian and Assyrian kings which show con-
tact with Amurru are naturally important for the reconstruction
of the history of that land. These show us that already in the
earliest known period of Babylonian history the great rulers of
that land were preying upon the Amorites. As is evident also
from what has preceded and what follows, the people of Amurru,
especially from the middle Mesopotamian district, also had their
turn in such undertakings.

EKtana, the twelfth king of Kish, as referred to in the last chap-
ter, is said to have subdued (ruled) all lands. This expression,
which is found in a tablet written in the time of the Nisin dynasty,
doubtless meant that the lands of the West were included. It
seems reasonable, therefore, to look upon Etana as the first known
ruler who came into contact with Amurru. The same is true as
regards the two fragmentary tablets, dealing with events in the
time of Shar-banda and Dumu-Zi, which refer to wars against Klam
below, Halma above, and Tidnum in the west. Also the conflict
of Gilgamesh and his companion Enkidu with Humbaba has been
noted. Humbaba is perhaps the earliest. Amorite known by name,
except the legendary antediluvian rulers handed down by Berossus.

Lugal-zaggisi, king of Erech, informs us that he conquered the
lands ‘‘from the sea, the lower, the Tigris and Kuphrates to the
sea, the upper (i. e., the Mediterranean).’’ For years it has been
known from late omen texts that Sargon, after several campaigns,
subdued the land of the Amorites, and set up an image of himself
on the Syrian coast. In an inscription recently published (UMBS
IV 1, 177 b), which gives legends from monuments seen in Nippur,
the god, presumably Enlil, is credited with having given unto Sar-
gon ‘‘the upper land Mari, Iarmuti, and Ibla even unto the Cedar
Forest and the Silver mountains.’’ The city or kingdom of Mari
was on the Euphrates (see Chapter X ); Iarmuti, as shown by the
Amarna letters, was a seaport town on the Phoenician coast; and

(95)

96 THE EMPIRE OF THE AMORITES.

Ibla, mentioned by Naram-Sin and also by Gudea, was the district
‘further north. The cedar forests, it would seem from the descrip-
tion, were north of Ibla, and therefore likely refer to the cedars of
the Amanus district, which Gudea mentions in his inscriptions.
The silver mountains, it is thought, are in the Taurus range, the

same referred to on tie obelisk of Shalmaneser.*

In the omens of Sargon there is a passage frequently uote
which reads: ‘‘the sea of the West he crossed,’’ which has been
interpreted as meaning the Mediterranean. But a chronicle more
recently published by King proves that the eastern sea is meant.
The passage reads: ‘‘The sea in the Hast he crossed, and in the
eleventh year the country of the West in its full extent his hand
subdued”’ (Chron. IJ, p.4). The above inscriptions taken from his
monuments show the extent of the West land which he conquered.

A clay tablet recently discovered at Amarna (VS XII, 193),
the translation of which was published by Sayce (PSBA 1915, 227
ff.), contains a legend of Sargon’s successful invasion of a distant
country separated by a barrier of trackless forests and mountains.
Sayee holds that this was in the Hittite region in eastern Asia
Minor. The tablet he thinks belonged to a Hittite resident of
Amarna of the period to which the so-called Amarna -tablets
belong. In a date of Shargani-Sharri, we learn that ruler con-
quered Amurru. It reads: ‘‘In the year in which Shargani-Sharri
conquered Amurru in Basar.’””

Gudea on his statue as.an architect informs us of his extensive
building operations, and how he secured his materials from moun-
tains in Amurru, Arabia, and the country north of Amurru. From
Mount Amanus he brought cedars, and urkarinu wood. From
Ursu in the mountain of Ibla, he brought zabalu, and asuhu wood,
and plane trees. From the mountains Umanu in Menua, and
Basalla (perhaps Mt. Bazara mentioned by Shargani-Sharri) in
Amurru, he brought stones, out of which he made stelae. From

*See Poebel, sbid. 224 f. Olmstead thinks the mines at Bulghar Maden
are here referred to (AJSZ 33, 311).

* Cf. Thureau-Dangin RTC 124. This place has been identified with Mt.
Bisuru, mentioned in Ashur-nasir-pal, III 9 ff. and the modern Buzera near
Circesium. If this is correct, it would indicate that in this period this part
of the land was included in Amurru.

IX. EARLY BABYLONIANS IN AMURRBU. 97

the mountain Tidanu in Amurru, he brought marble; and from
Kagalad, a mountain of Ki-Mash (Damascus), he brought copper.
From the mountains of Melubha, he brought ust wood; and gold
dust from the mountains of Hahu. From a mountain in Gubin, he
secured huluppu wood; from Madga asphalt, and from the moun-
tain Barshib, nalua stone. From the lands of the lower country by
the Persian Gulf to the upper country of the Mediterranean Sea,
as well as other places, he transported materials for his building
operations and statues. In the absence of any military records of
Gudea, we know only what the contributions of these lands were in
building materials.

Dungi in his year dates commemorates the devastation of differ-
ent cities in the west, as Humurti (probably Gomorrah), Ki-Mash
(Damascus), ete. Unfortunately, many of the cities which Dungi
conquered cannot be identified. Together with the other rulers of
the dynasty who followed, namely, Amar-Sin, Gimil-Sin, and Ibi-
Sin, he used the title ‘‘king of the four quarters of the world,”’’
which it is understood included Amurru. On the seal impression
bearing Ibi-Sin’s name found on a Cappadocian tablet, see Chapter
XIII.

Elam held the suzerainty of Amurru for atime. Kudur-Mabug,
the father of Warad-Sin and Rim-Sin, used the title Ad-da *""Mar-
tu, ‘‘Suzerain of Amurru.’’ That Elam held sway in Palestine
is confirmed by the tradition handed down in the fourteenth Chap-
ter of Genesis, which informs us that in the days of Amraphel,
Chedorlaomer (Kudur-Lagamar), king of Klam, invaded Palestine.
It would seem that Elam had gained ascendancy in this region
about the time it did over Larsa in Babylonia when following a
succession of short reigns the sons of Kudur-Mabug, Warad-Sin
and Rim-Sin, were placed on the throne of Larsa.

Hammurabi in conquering Elam in his thirty-first year, and Mari
in his thirty-fifth year, acquired the title to Amurru (see Chapter
X). In a stele found at Diarbekr in Southern Armenia (LIA I
66) he calls himself ‘‘King of Amurru.’’ Whether at this time
Amurru included this part of the Near Hast cannot at present be
determined.

Hammurabi’s son and successor, Samsu-iluna, in the date for-
mula for his thirty-sixth year, refers to the great mountains of

98 THE EMPIRE OF THE AMORITES.

Amurru (CT 2, 27:18). Only one other ruler of the same dynasty,
Ammi-ditana, the great-grandson of Hammurabi, refers to the land
in his title ‘‘king da-ga-mu of the land Amurru’’ (LIH I 100: 6),
which term is not understood. In the Cassite period, which fol-
lowed, contact with Amurru is unknown, except the bringing back
from Hani of the images of Marduk and Sarpanitum.

Contact on the part of the kings of Babylonia with Amurru
seems to synchronize with highly prosperous reigns. When inva-
sions or conquests of Amurru, Elam and Subartu took place, it was
usually at a time when Babylonia was strong and vigorous. These
were periods when art flourished, and the scribe was much in evi-
dence. Monumental records or victory steles seemed to be the
order. When all the lands, or the lands from the lower sea to the
upper, were conquered, including Elam, the ruler used the title,
‘‘king of the four quarters of the world.’’ The title enjoyed by
kings in reigns immediately preceding or following such, is fre-
quently ‘‘king of Sumer and Akkad,’’ which embraced simply the
northern and southern part of Babylonia.

Between these periods which offer evidence of high water marks
of what were regarded as prosperous times, there are dark periods
when the civilization was apparently at a low ebb. Even temple
records in these periods do not seem to have been kept; in fact,
evidences that there were scribes in some of these eras are almost
completely wanting, though naturally this could scarcely have
been the case. Prior to the time of Lugal-zaggisi, and the period
following the reign of Shargani-Sharri, there are great gaps in the
history. Following the overthrow of the Ur Dynasty, when Amo-
rites began to reign in different centres, there was apparently a
chaotic state of affairs for nearly a century, as the almost complete
absence of records shows. In the first half of the Cassite rule, as
far as is known at present, there was again such a lull. The same
is true during the greater portion of the period when the Assyrians
were dominant.

As arule the monuments of Babylonia throw no light on the ques-
tion as to what was the cause of the low tide of civilization in
these periods. The conqueror did not record what led to the over-
throw of the native dynasty. He was not in a position to flaunt
before the conquered people the fact that he had subjugated them

IX. EARLY BABYLONIANS IN AMURRU. 99

The presence of foreigners upon the thrones must explain for us
what happened. The kings who sat on the thrones being Amorites,
Elamites, Gutians, Cassites, ete., we can only infer that the tables
had been turned for the time being upon the Babylonians. We
are often dependent, for what we know of them, upon the effort of
the later scribe who handed down to us dynastic lists; but many
of these are unfortunately so fragmentary, especially for the early
periods, that we are still in the dark even as to the length of many
of these eras of depression. An occasional historical reference as
to what occurred may be found in later periods, as for example,
we are informed in a chronicle that Agum-kakrime brought
back to Babylon from Hani the cult-images of Marduk and
Sarpanitum, and installed them in their shrines; or Ashurbanipal,
in recording his defeat of Elam, celebrates his return of the statue
of Nana to her shrine in Erech, which he informs us was carried
off to Klam by Kudur-Nahundi, 1635 years earlier, but additional
knowledge of the invasions is wanting.

If we were able to delve among the records of the powers whose
representatives sat upon the throne of Babylonia, perhaps we
would know more about the state of affairs that led to the over-
throw of the rule. The resurrection of Klam’s royal records, those
of Amurru, Guti, Shubartu, etc., will enable us to fill up some of the
gaps in the early history of Babylonia. They, doubtless, will also
show how these countries held sway over Babylonia at times of
which at present we have no intimation whatever. <A country like
Amurru, which was overrun and plundered many times throughout
the millenniums of its history, certainly, especially in the early
period, was strong enough to strike back. The divination texts
would alone be sufficient to show that the fear and dread of this
being done were ever before the peoples of Babylonia. It is only
necessary to examine these texts to ascertain how deeply seated
was this fear. Since the Amorites were quiescent after 2000 B. C.,
we must conclude that the divination formulae portending trouble
from this quarter came from an earlier period. Moreover from the
evidence we already possess, there can be no question but that
trouble from the West occurred repeatedly; and it is certainly rea-
sonable to infer that when fuller dynastic records have been
recovered this fact will become more and more evident.

x

UR THE CAPITAL OF AMURRU

It has been customary to look upon the political life of Amurru,
especially of the early period, as more or less devoid of cohesion
orunity. The fact is, Amurru is generally regarded as made up of
petty princedoms of semi-enlightened people, or tribes of a semi-
barbarous character. This conception has been favorable for the
development of the pan-Babylonists’ theories, and for the view that -
all Semites are'Arabs; but this is erroneous, for the early period
as well as the late, and must be abandoned. The country embraced
such peoples who had a low order of culture, especially in certain
regions, as for example Palestine, which, with its varied geograph-
ical character and being more or less isolated, was a home of neo-
lithic man as well as a harbor for representatives of many nations.
Nevertheless there are abundant reasons for believing that even
this region had its large quota of civilized people; and as regards
the country as a whole, it will be shown as we proceed that it
enjoyed, politically and otherwise, a civilization comparable to that
of its neighbors.

Whenever light is thrown upon the political situation in the post-
Amorite period (i. e. after 2000 B. C.) by contemporaneous records,
we learn of kingdoms of a greater or less extent. The inscriptions

of Thutmose III (1501-1447 B. C.) furnish us with the earliest

knowledge of political affairs in Amurru in this post-Amorite
period. At this time, the king of Kadesh is either the head of an
alliance of Amorites which included Palestine, or he is suzerain
over this region (see Chapter XIV). In the Amarna period, Abdi-
Ashirta, who was recognized by Egypt as an overlord of the Leba-
non Amorites, and Aziru his son, created with the assistance of the
Hittites an Amorite kingdom (see Chapter XII). We have knowl-
edge also of Og and Sihon, kings of the Kast Jordan Amorites.
A few centuries later the Hebrews under Saul aspired to found a
kingdom; which under David and Solomon embraced, with the
(100)

X. UR THE CAPITAL OF AMURRU. {01

exception of Phoenicia and the Lebanon coastal cities, the territory
reaching unto the upper Euphrates. There was also an Aramaean
kingdom with Damascus.as its capital. In the Assyrian period
we know of great alliances or coalitions. In the Mesopotamian
region, other kingdoms are known. In short, whenever the veil is
lifted and we obtain a glimpse of political affairs, we learn of the
existence of kingdoms, small and large, or of aspirations to found
such kingdoms.

The greatest political ascendancy in Western Amurru that is
known in post-Amorite times was that of Jerusalem before the
kingdom was divided and fell a prey to Assyria and later to Baby-
lonia. Without the indigenous record that we have in the Old Tes-
tament, we should know absolutely nothing of the kingdom of David
and Solomon. Egypt, Assyria, and Babylonia, at the time when
the Jews founded their kingdom, were comparatively weak,! and
were absorbed with their own problems at home, which permitted
the Hebrews to develop their kingdom. There were many such
periods in the history of Babylonia, especially in the earlier millen-
niums, when powerful kings could have ruled the length and
breadth of Amurru; and of whom we shall learn as little in the
annals of Babylonia, even when all have been brought to light, as
we have in later times of Solomon and David. Early Egypt also
had its periods of decline, for which it is not at all improbable that
some mighty Amorite rulers were responsible. In short, a great
and powerful hegemony in Amurru could have existed in the very
periods on which contemporary records in Egypt and Babylonia
are silent, or in which no annals were produced; and it is only by
the help of isolated statements, perhaps of a later period, or by
the study of the personal names, that it can be ascertained that the
cause of the decline was due to the encroachments of some power-
ful neighbor. It would be reasonable to infer, having alone the
knowledge of these kingdoms, alliances, and coalitions, that

* Breasted, however, thinks, on the basis of 1 Kgs. 9: 16, that Solomon was
evidently an Egyptian vassal, who possibly received in marriage a daughter
of the Pharaoh, and whose territory his Egyptian suzerain extended by the
gift of Gezer, which the Canaanites had not conquered, but which he cap-
tured, burned and presented to Solomon. HE p. 529.

102 THE EMPIRE OF THE AMORITES.

Amurru, which land was so favorable for an advanced civilization,
prior to the time that it succumbed to Elam and Babylon, played
an important role among its neighbors. But there is no need to
rely upon inferences for this view, since there is proof that it is
fact.

The land Amurru like every other kingdom had a centre from
which it was governed. In searching for this imperial city it seems
that certain considerations must be kept in mind. In the first place
it would seem reasonable to look for a city that bore the same name
as the kingdom, having in mind such lands as Ashur, Mash, Akkad,
Tilla, Babylon, ete. It would appear that the city should have
existed at a very early era to account for the name Martu—Amurru
being used for the land in the early periods. The city doubtless
occupied a position rather centrally located to have maintained its .
dominance over this wide area, and also to have influenced Baby-
lonia so extensively. Such a city it would seem, having conquered
all the surrounding kingdoms, and occupied such a prominent
position, must have practically passed out of existence, for little is
known about it in the late centuries. The city probably was the
home of the god whose name was written Mar, Mer, Amar, Uru,
El-Ur (Aloros), etc., and who figured so prominently in the early
nomenclature of the Babylonians. With the loss of its prestige in
the latter part of the third millennium B. C., Amorite influence
upon Babylonia practically ceased; the city’s religion must have
waned, for subsequent to the time of the First Dynasty of Babylon,
Amorite names compounded with Mer, Mar, Amurru or Uru are
rare in comparison to earlier periods; in fact some of the writings
of the name totally disappear in personal names, although they are
preserved in the late period in the syllabaries.

The writer has shown that Amurru, which is written in Aramaic
Uru (8), is identical with the name of Abraham’s home, Ur
of the Chaldees, i. e. Ur (MN8).2. Its position in history, like
that of the kingdom of Amurru, was practically lost sight of. So
little was known of the city that the Jews in Babylon in Talmudic

2 See Amurru 167 ff. Since the name Amurru or Uru was regarded the
same as Ur, the writer proposed the identification of a place near Sippar
as the site of the city; this view is now abandoned.

X. UR THE CAPITAL OF AMURRU. 108

times and some later Arabian writers regarded Warka (or Erech,
Gen. 10: 10) as the city. It now seems highly probable to the
writer that the centre sought for as the imperial city, or Amurru,
is the place known as Ur of the Chaldees.

Recently Olmstead revived an identification which he credits
Henry Rawlinson as having made from a topographical point of
view, namely that of the city Amurru with Marathus, which
appears on the sea coast opposite Arvad.’ Olmstead, regarding
this the capital, sees the name also in the river Marathias of Eusta-
thias, ad Dionys. 914, and in the modern ‘Amrit (JAOS 38 249).
In the Amarna Letters the kingdom formed by Abdi-Ashirta in this
region is called Amurru. The Boghaz-koi archival tablets, as well
as the Egyptian inscriptions of this period, also use the old name
of the empire. Probably the name Marathias and ‘Amrit have
come down from this period. The ‘‘city of Amor’’ mentioned by
Ramses IIT (1198-1167) may be this city. In the Assyrian period
Amurru seems to have been confined to this district; and it is per-
fectly natural to look for the old capital in this region; in fact,
the present writer has heretofore inclined toward this view. More
recent investigations, however, seem to point elsewhere as the
region of the old capital which gave the land its name, and espe-
cially since we have many references to the Mediterranean cities in
the early inscriptions of Babylonia and Egypt (see Chapters IX
and XIV), but not the slightest evidence of the city in question in
the period when the empire existed, namely, in the third and fourth
millenniums B. C. Such an argument is always precarious, but
nevertheless until evidence is found it appears to the writer that it
is reasonable to look elsewhere, in the light of other facts, for the
ancient and important city which was powerful enough to rule the
land from the Mediterranean to Babylonia.

The earliest kingdom in the Mesopotamian region of which at
present we have knowledge is that of Mari or Meri, along the
Huphrates. The city played an important réle in the early history
of Babylonia, and very probably of the entire North Semitic world.

* Rawlinson says: ‘‘In the Khorsabad Inscription, for Akarra or Acre is
often substituted Maratha which is of course Mdpafos of Strabo ‘zovXus:
dpxata Bowixwv’ Lib. 16, 518.’’ (JRAS OS 12, 430 n. 1.)

104 THE EMPIRE OF THE AMORITES.

The earliest known reference to the city is on a votive statuette
in the British Museum written in archaic script, which reads as
follows: ‘‘ . . . -um-Shamash, king of Mari, great patesi of Enlil,
. . . to Shamash presented as a gift’’ (CT 5,2). The title patesi-
gal “Enlil shows that this early king of Mari was suzerain over at
least part of Babylonia. It seems to the writer that this scarcely
noticed text is of the greatest importance in that it is the earliest
known inscription of an Amorite, and refers unquestionably to one
of those early periods when Amurru was the dominant power in
Babylonia. The style of the sculpture, which is archaic, points to
the earliest age, probably as early as the statue found by Banks
at Bismaya (King SA 97). The character of the writing also
points to a very early age. The writer finds no reference to its pro-
venance, but a photograph of the statuette has been published
(abid. p. 102).

Kannatum, an early patesi of Lagash, informs us that in his day
Mari was allied with Kish and Kesh (Opis) against him (VB I 22,
VI: 22). The coalition of these cities with Mari is interesting in
this connection because they are Semitic centres. Hannatum
claims to have administered a crushing defeat to the confederacy
led by Zuzu of Kesh, at the Antasurra of Ningirsu, and to have
pursued them to their own city. He does not mention, however,
that he conquered Mari.

Sargon, king of the Kish-Akkad dynasty, refers to the capture
of Mari. He informs us that some deity whose name is missing,
probably Enlil, ‘‘gave unto him the upper land, Mari, Iarmnti and
Ibla as far as the cedar forest and the silver mountains’’ (UMBS
IV 7,179 f.).. Inan oracle of Ishbi-Urra, as noted in Chapter VIII,

‘the founder of the Nisin Dynasty, that king is twice called ‘‘the

man of Mari.’’ We have also seen that not only the Nisin rulers
bear Amorite names, but those of the contemporaneous dynasties,
namely Larsa and Babylon; which, considered in connection with
the fact that the nomenclature at this time is filled with Amorite
names, show great influence from this quarter (see Chapter VIII).

To this period very probably belongs a votive tablet, now in the
Louvre, which had been inscribed by a king whose name has also
unfortunately been injured. It reads as follows: ‘‘Zi-i[m-. . .]
son of Ja-ah-. . ., king of Mari, and the country . . ., who built

X. UR THE CAPITAL OF AMURRU. 105

the temple of . . ., whofrom.. . brought. . ., on the bank of the
Hu[phrates], the bit Su-ri-b[t1] . ., in Tirq[a], the beloved of the
god . . .’’ (See Herzfeld RA 11 134 ff.). The script, which is

that of the Ur Dynasty or earlier, and the knowledge we possess
of Mari and the collapse of its political position (see below), make
it highly probable that it belongs to a period not later than the
middle of the third millennium B. C. Moreover, we learn from
the inscription the fragmentary name of a Mari king, Zim-. . .
and that of his father, also only partially preserved, namely
Jah-. . ., who, it is reasonable to assume was also a ruler. This
being true, we know the fragmentary names of three kings of
Mari, the earliest being . . .-um-Shamash. Besides these Amo-
rite kings, we know of Humbaba who was very probably a king in
the Lebanon district in the time of Gilgamesh (see Chapter VIII),
and an early patesi of Ki-Mash (very probably Damascus), named
Hunnini. To these should be added the names of the four local
Amorite kings mentioned in the fourteenth chapter of Genesis;
but these ruled about the time the empire was dissolved, or even
later. They were local city-rulers of Western Amurru.

In the latter part of the third millennium Elam entered the
Western arena, and with the help of its vassals, conquered the
Amorite world. The fourteenth chapter of Genesis informs us
how in the Hammurabi (Amraphel) era, Elam had invaded the
Amorite territory on the west side of the Jordan and the Dead
Sea. It is not improbable that this is the time the hegemony of
_ Mari was finally broken up, when the king of Elam became Adda
Martu ‘‘Suzerain of Amurru’’ (VB 210, 6: 4). It is not unlikely
that the fragmentary date for Hammurabi’s tenth year refers to
this invasion, for in it the population of Malgu is mentioned,
probably as having been carried away. A few years after Ham-
murabi had thrown off the yoke of Elam in his thirty-fifth year,
he destroyed Mari and Malgu. The date reads: ‘‘The year in
which Hammurabi after having destroyed the walls of Mari and
Malgu, at the command of Anu and Enlil,’’ ete. As this event
followed closely upon his contest for supremacy with Elam, it
would seem that probably Mari had attempted to regain its former
status. Mari and Malgu doubtless required more than ordinary
efforts on the part of Hammurabi, because of which their over-

106 THE EMPIRE OF THE AMORITES.

throw was celebrated in the date formula. In his Code the law-
giver speaks of himself as the one who subdued the settlements
along the Euphrates, ‘‘the warrior of Dagan, his creator, who pro-
tected the people of Mari and Tutul.’’ The Code probably refers
to a time subsequent to the destruction of the city’s walls. Mari
thereafter ceased to be an important political power in Western
Asia.

Only two references in the Babylonian inscriptions to Mari sub-
sequent to the ascendancy of Babylon are known to the writer. In
a relief of the later period, Shamash-résh-usur calls himself gov-
ernor of Suhi and Mari (Weissbach Miscin. 9 f.); and the city
is mentioned in a document as being in proximity to Suhi (CT 4,
2r: 20). In brief, the city Mari ceased to be a factor in the politi-
cal affairs of Western Asia after the time of Hammurabi.

Mari must be recognized as the city Mar of the early inscrip-
tions. The goddess whose name is written ideographically Nin-
Mar", to whom Dungi erected or restored a temple in Girsu, is
the ba‘alat of Mar.

From this centre, namely Mari or Mar, there went forth the
gods named Shar-Urra and Mesh-Lam-Ta-e, two names of Ne-Uru-
Gal (=Nergal) the god of Cutha. The equation Mar —4Nin-IB
identifies Urta with the city.

The absolute identification of Mar with Mar-tu—Amurru—Uru
and the other forms of this name, see the previous chapter, gives
us every reason for identifying the city Mari as the centre we are
looking for, which was powerful enough to weld together the
Semitic peoples of this region into a great nation and to give it
the name Amurru; this it retained for millenniums, even subse-
quent to the time the hegemony was destroyed. Yet, it was in all
probability the home of the Chaldean antediluvian mythological
kings at the head of which stands El-’Ur (Aloros), and who was fol-
lowed by five other kings whose names also contain the city-god’s
name, Alap-’Ur (Alaparos), Amél-’Ur (Amillaros), Megal-’Ur
(Megaloros), Ebed-’Ur, the brother (Huedorachos), and perhaps
*Ar-data (Ardates.) (see Chapter [X). This also was the ancestral
home of Ishbi-Urra and Imitti-Urra of the Nisin Dynasty; and
moreover it is highly probable that it was the home of Abraham.

Taking into account all that is known from the inscriptions, and

X. UR THE CAPITAL OF AMURRU. 107

the conditions that we could propose in the identification of the
imperial centre, no city in Amurru fulfills the conditions as does
Mari or Merra on the Euphrates. Further St. Stephen says Ur
of the Chaldees was in Mesopotamia (Acts 7: 2, 4).

In this connection the question arises, when did Merra or Ur
establish the hegemony which gave its name to the entire land;
and when was it dissolved? Naturally it was established long
before the time of Sargon, but whether as early as the time of
Etana, Shar-banda or Gilgamesh, when Humbaba lived, or not,
cannot be surmised. It is reasonable to infer perhaps that the
empire was established prior to the time when . . . um-Shamash,
king of Mari, ruled Babylonia. Sargon in turn humiliated Mari.
He captured the city and invaded the region beyond, as far as Ibla
(see above). Following the Kish and Erech Dynasties, Guti
ruled Babylonia; but Guti in turn was overthrown by Hrech.
Another dark period followed, the length of which cannot be deter-
mined at present.t The status of Mari in the West during the
time of the Ur Dynasty, which followed, is not known, but the fact
that these conquerors made no mention of the city is proof that
its fortified position was too strong for them; yet they carried
on their practice of looting and gathering tribute from the king-
doms beyond. During the Ur Dynasty, Mari certainly did not
have a dominant position, for the Ur Dynasty kings assumed the
title ‘‘king of the four regions,’’ which included Amurru. But
the time came when not only Ur’s control of Amurru was lost, but
Mari actually overthrew the dynasty and ruled the land, for ‘‘Ish-
bi-Urra a man from Mari’’ was placed upon the Nisin throne.
Although we have no way of determining the origin of Naplanum
who took the throne of Larsa, his name and those of his dynasty
are Amorite. Moreover it is to be noted that the Larsa and Nisin

4The writer is one of those who have clung to a greater antiquity for
Sargon than is now generally accepted. The tablets published by Scheil
(Comptes Rendus 1911 6061) and Poebel (UMBS V) have restored some of
the dynasties between Sargon and the Ur Dynasty, and he feels that more
will become known as investigations proceed. It will probably not be pos-
sible to return to the former early date, but the present indications are that
a much greater antiquity than now acceded, will have to be granted.

108 THE EMPIRE OF THE AMORITES.

Dynasties were established at or near the same time (see Chapter
IX). One of those dark periods in the history of Sumer and
Akkad, which has left us few or no inscriptions, follows; although
the length of the reigns would not imply disintegration in this
instance, but perhaps rather foreign control, as mentioned above.
Amorites a little later established a dynasty at Babylon; and as
far as is known they ruled the whole land. As time passed the
Amorite rulers became Babylonized. The Amorite dynasty at
Larsa was overthrown by the Elamites, to whom also Babylon
became subject. Elam invaded Amurru. Subsequently Hammu-
rabi drove the Hlamites out of the land, and a few years later
conquered Mari, destroyed its walls, and also those of other strong-
holds along the Kuphrates; when the imperial history of Mari or
Amurru was closed.

It was said in Amurru (p. 103), concerning the name Uri for the
country Akkad, or northern Babylonia, that it is not improbable
that in some period, when the peoples of Amurru dominated
Akkad, the name of the broad Amorite land Uri (—Amurru) was
geographically extended to include it. The more recent investi-
gations confirm this idea, especially since we know that the Amo-
rites conquered Babylonia several times. If this is not correct,
we can only assume that two countries, adjacent to each other, and
inhabited by Semitic peoples who were closely related, had the
Same name, which in both instances was written with the ideogram
BUR-BUR, and yet the names had nothing in common. Since the
Western Semites at times invaded Babylonia, and sat on the
thrones of the land, this scarcely seems as reasonable as the view
that the name was given to Akkad in some early period when the
peoples from Uri dominated it.

_ Recently the writer proposed the identification of the city whose
name is written Ma-ri* and Mar with Merra ‘‘a fortified place,
a walled city,’’ which was mentioned in his Parthian Stations by
Isidore of Charax of the first century B. C. (see MI 4f.) Accord-
ing to Isidore there was fifteen schoeni between the Aburas
(Habur) and Merra, and twenty-two between Merra and Anatho.®

* From the Aburas, Isidore informs us, it was four schoeni to Asich, six
to Dura Nicanoris, five to Merra, a fortified place, a walled village, five to

X. UR THE CAPITAL OF AMURRU. 109

The latter city, as is understood (see below), was by ‘Ana on an
island in the Euphrates. Merra therefore should be less than half
the distance from the Habur to ‘Ana.

The ruins of Irzi situated on a bluff or headland of a low range
of rocky hills reaching the river on its north bank, although about
midway between the Habur and ‘Ana, have been considered by
Peters,® Schoff,’? and others, to represent Merra. These pictur-
esque ruins, which can be seen from a great distance, have been
mentioned by all travellers who have noted the different sites on
either side of the Euphrates. Cernik, in his Studien Expedition
1872-3, gives the name El Baus to the city. Balbi says the ruins
in 1579 occupied a city larger in extent than Cairo, and appeared
to be the massive walls and lofty towers of a great city. This led
Rennell® to identify Corsote mentioned by Xenophon (see below)
with the site which he called Erzi or Irsah. Ainsworth comment-
ing on Balbi’s description thinks he mistook ‘‘the jagged and
broken masses of gypsum for the fragments of an endless city”’
(Euphrates Expedition I 389). Also Miss Gertrude L. Bell, who
examined the ruins, says she did not find bastioned walls, as she
expected, but a number of isolated tower-tombs, round the edge of
the bluff and over the whole extent of the high rocky plateau. She
saw no traces of houses, nor means of obtaining water; she thinks
it was the necropolis of a near-by town, and dates from the first
or second century of the Christian era.® Whether beneath the
tombs seen by Miss Bell belonging to recent centuries, ruins of an
ancient walled city will be found if excavations are conducted,
remains to be seen.

Olmstead seems to think that Isidore located Merra on the
HKuphrates at the town ‘Isharah as exactly as one can locate a city

Giddan, seven to Belesi Biblada, six to an island, four to Anatho, two to
Thilabus, twelve to Izan, and sixteen to Aipolis or Hit.

° Nippur, or Explorations and Adventures on the Euphrates I 311 ff.

* Parthian Stations by Isidore of Charax p. 24.

§ Illustrations of the Retreat of the Ten Thousand p. 103.

°Amurath to Amurath 83 ff. Since Ainsworth ibid. p. 387 says the
cliffs of Irzi were also called Al Wurdi by the Arabs, the name of the city
further up the stream, it may be possible that Irzi was the necropolis of
that city.

110 THE EMPIRE OF THE AMORITES.

on the hour basis (AJ7' p. 284); but ‘Isharah is too far up the
stream. A little above Irzi on the Huphrates is the site of an
ancient city which at present is called Werdi (also Wurdi). This
site is less than half way between the Habur and ‘Ana, and seems to
be nearer to the position given for Merra, by Isidore, than Irzi; it
was fifteen hours from the Habur and twenty-two to ‘Ana. Werdi
also is thought to be the Corsote of Xenophon, who referred to it as
a large deserted city, which was entirely surrounded by the Mascea,
and where Cyrus passed three days on his march against Artax-
erxes his brother (Anabasis I 5, 9). No other ancient writer is
known to have referred to the city named Corsote. Doubtless in
Xenophon’s time the ruins of the ancient city were still in evidence.
Ainsworth, however, says he saw no remains of a city. The posi-
tion of the city naturally makes it possible to understand this; the
Masca mentioned by Xenophon is understood to be the loop canal
which encloses the bend of the river on which Werdi stood. This
canal is now called Werdiyeh.t° Since Mar and Mer frequently
interchange with We-ir, it is reasonable to suggest that Werdi per-
haps is from Werti, and is to be identified with Martu. If the
site actually represents the ancient city Merra or Ur, this will
appear most reasonable. Moreover, the remark previously made
several times again seems appropriate here, the spade of the exca-
vator can easily determine whether Werdi represents the city in
question.

% Bell Amurath to Amurath p. 82.

XI

OTHER MESOPOTAMIAN KINGDOMS

The kingdom of Hana embraced a district of the middle Kuphra-
tes, including the country in the region of the mouth of the Habur
above Merra. The discovery of a few inscriptions in this district
fortunately throws considerable light upon the character of the
civilization. One of the chief towns, perhaps at one time the capi-
tal of Hana, was Tirgqa; with which place four of the few inscrip-
tions can be definitely identified. The site of the city is supposed
to lie near Tell ‘Isharah, where several of the tablets were found,
a town situated between Ed-Dér (or Dér Ez-Zor) and Salihiya.
This identification seems corroborated by the discovery also at
that site of a votive inscription of Shamshi-Adad, in which he
records the restoration of a temple in that city (see below).

The earliest reference to the city Tirga is in the inscription of
Zi-i[m . . .] king of Mari, referred to in the previous chapter, who
restored the bit su-ri-b[1] in that city. The inscription cannot be
definitely dated, but the script and other considerations point to
the middle of the third millennium B. C., when Mari was still prob-
ably the imperial city of Amurru.

The inscription of Shamshi-Adad referred to above reads:
‘‘Shamshi-Adad, king of the universe, the ruler of Enlil, the wor-
shipper of Dagan, the patesi of Ashur, the builder of Hkisigga,
the temple of his assistance, the temple of Dagan in Tirga’’! In
this inscription Shamshi-Adad.calls himself ‘‘the priest-king of
the god Ashur,’’ which means he was the king of Assyria; ‘‘ruler
of Enlil,’’ which implies he was the suzerain over Babylon; and
‘‘the worshipper of Dagan,’’ by which he regarded himself the
patron of Tirqa’s deity. Doubtless he had conquered the city and
district, and by his ‘‘pious deeds’’ attempted to placate the inhabi-
tants.

There was an Assyrian king named *Shamshi-Adad who lived

*Condamin ZA 21, 247 ff.
(111)

112 THE EMPIRE OF THE AMORITES.

in the time of Hammurabi; another bearing the same name ruled
about 1850 B. C., and others about 1600 B. C. and in the ninth
century. Shamshi-Adad III, who ruled about 1600 B. C., used the
same title ‘‘king of the universe’’ (Sar kissatt), and informs us
that he was solicitous for the land between the Tigris and the
Euphrates (K7A 2: 1 ff.). It would seem reasonable to regard
him as the one who rebuilt the temple in Tirga referred to in the -
above mentioned inscription.

Besides this votive inscription, three contracts have been dis-
covered. ‘The first is a deed of gift which was granted by Isharlim
or Isarlim (which name is identified by some with ‘Israel’), who
was king of Hana, as shown by the impression of the royal seal
on the tablet. The deed conveys a house in Al-eshshum, a part of
the city Tirqa, which was the property of the gods, Shamash,
Dagan, and Itur-Mer, and of the king. These names occur in the
oath formula (ZC 237). The date reads ‘‘In the year when Ishar-
lim, the king, built the great gate of the palace in the city of Kash-
dah.’’

The second is a deed of gift of several plots of land in the towns
Ja’mu-Dagan and Tirqa, to his servant Pagirum, by Ammi-bail,
the son of Shunu’-rammu, king of the same district (VS 7, 204).
The oath formula includes the names of the same deities, Shamash,
Dagan and Itur-Mer, and that of the king Ammi-bail, in whose
reign the document is dated; i. e., ‘‘in the year when Ammi-bail,
the king, ascended the throne in his father’s house.’’

The third tablet is also a deed of land, in Tirga, which is dated
‘‘in the year when Kashtiliashu established righteousness’? (LC
238). The oath formula is similar to that of the other two deeds.
Whether the Cassite king bearing this name is the one who lived
in the eighteenth century, or the one in the thirteenth, or even
another, it is impossible to say.

Another inscription from this part of the country is a marriage
contract. Its exact provenance is unknown, but it certainly came
from the same region. It is dated ‘‘in the year when Hammu-
rabih, the king, opened the canal Habur-ibal-Bugash from the city
Dir-Isharlim to the city Dir-Igitlim.’’ This would seem to show
that a canal passed from Dir-Isharlim on the Habur to Dir-Igit-
lim. Since Dir-Isharlim apparently was a royal palace, Dfir-

XI. OTHER MESOPOTAMIAN KINGDOMS. Ls.

Igitlim may also have been the castle of Igitlim, another ruler of
Hana. These two names which have been so frequently quoted,
were incorrectly read Zakku-Isharlim and Zakku-Igitlim (Johns
PSBA 1907, 177 ff.). The original, which is in Mr. J. Pierpont
Morgan’s library, clearly reads Dir-Isharlim and. Daur- Igitlim.

Johns identified the king with the Babylonian law-giver; but
besides the date of the tablet not being a known date of the ruler,
which fact he recognized, there are other reasons for believing the
tablet was written in the Cassite period, unless it is assumed that _
the Cassites, prior to Hammurabi’s time, had already influenced
Mesopotamia in an extensive manner. Besides the name of the
canal, which is compounded with that of the Cassite god Bugash,
one of the four personal names mentioned in the tablet, Kikkinu,?
shows Mitannian influence. The other three names of i contract,
*Bi-it-tt-“Da-gan, Pa-gi-rum, and A-ba-ia, are West-Semitic. Fur-
ther, the seal impression on the tablet, which has not as yet been
published, is, as far as is known to the writer, peculiar to the Cas-
site period.? These facts point either to the conclusion that the
Cassites conquered this region prior to Hammurabi’s time, and
that this great ruler recognized their deity in naming the canal he
dug, which he did not do in any inscriptions known from Baby-
lonia, and that he employed different date formulae outside of
Babylonia; or else the tablet was een in the reign of another
and later ruler.

The orthography Hammurabih* has no bearing on the question,

2 With the name Ki-ik-ki-nu we can compare Ki-ki-Tesup, Ki-ik-Tesup
(41M), Kt-tk-ia, Ki-tk-ku-li and fKt-ik-ki-ra-en-ni_ (see Clay PN).

’ The text will be republished in Part IV of Babylonian Records in the
Library of J. Pierpont Morgan.

4Tt seems unfortunate that there should be so much confusion introduced
into the spelling of the Babylonian lawgiver’s name, for besides Hammu-
rabi there have been introduced Hammurabih, Hammurapi, Hammurauw,
and Hammu-rawil. In changing the pronunciation, scholars have been
trying to accommodate themselves to four facts: the Assyrian translation
of the name kimta rapastum, offered by a late scribe; to Amraphel, in
Genesis; the form Am-mu-ra-pi, in an Assyrian letter; and Ha-am-mu-ra-
bi-ih in the Hana marriage contract. To these cases should be added the
occurrence of the name written 4Am-mu-ra-pi (YBC 4362), Am-mu-ra-bi

114 THE EMPIRE OF THE AMORITES.

for the signs 7 and 2’ were used interchangeably both in the Ham-
murabi and in the Cassite period.®> There is a name in the Amarna
letters El-ra-bi-th (also written I-li-ra-[bi-th] ) which doubtless
represents the same element rabi’ from the root meaning ‘‘to be

great.’
Besides these four legal documents and the votive inscriptions
of Zim . . ., and that of Shamshi-Adad, which throw most wel-

(YBC 6270), and Ha-am-mu-um-ra-pi (YBC 6496, 6508) on First Dynasty
records, which have been discovered by Dr. Grice of the Yale Babylonian
Seminary.

That this foreign name should be written occasionally with rapi instead
of rabi, and especially in Assyria, where the harder pronunciation of the
labial is frequently found, is not surprising. There is some justification
for the reading rapi from N5* ‘‘to heal,’’? advanced by Prince, ef. Nabié-
ra-pa-’ (BE 10:57); but the element can scarcely be the Arabic raft,
“‘high’’ (Thureau-Dangin OLZ 1908 93), nor with Hommel from the Arabic
roots rabaha, rabagha, ete. (OLZ 1907 235 f.). Evidence that these roots
were used in Arabic or Amorite names is necessary to make the suggestions
convincing; and further, such a meaning as ‘‘ Amm is wide’’ or ‘‘the family
is broad’’ is without parallel for personal names. The assumption of
Luckenbill, who makes the root MV ‘‘to be airy, roomy, wide,’’ is still
less convincing (JAOS 37, 252). Chiera’s Amorite list, as well as the Yale
Gilgamesh tablet, show that the signs pz, bi, m1, and bu, mu, ete., represent
similar Amorite sounds, but the statement that in Old Babylonian the word
for ‘‘son’’ is not aplu but maru, and that names read abil, ‘‘son,’’ must
be changed to awil, ‘‘man’’ (UMBS XT 1, 37 f.), which Luckenbill accepts
(JAOS 37, 252), is difficult to understand. Cf. ab-lam 31:54, Ab-lu-ivmm
28:19, etc., of the Code; a-bil 17:1, a-bi-l 210:10, ete, VAB 5, and ef.
A-bil (TUR) -Samas, etc. (Ranke PN). Moreover, evidence of the use of
this root FT) in personal names is wanting; and besides the element would
appear rah, instead of rawi or rawth.

While rawt, rawth, or rafi are not found in Amorite names, rabi from the
root ‘‘to be great,’’ is very common. This element is even found in the
Amorite names of Cappadocia. It seems comparatively easy to understand
how the Assyrian scribe, mistaking the element Amm of an earlier age for
the word meaning ‘‘family,’’ translated rabi with rapastum. In short,
this royal scribe of Ashurbanipal’s library was sufficiently educated to
know at least the pronunciation of the name, which he wrote ra-bi; and bi
in the Assyrian period cannot be read wi or pt. The same is true of the

XI. OTHER MESOPOTAMIAN KINGDOMS. 14D

come light upon the civilization of the Hana district, especially in
the early part of the second millennium B. C., there should be men-
tioned also another document of the early period which has been
published by Pinches (CT 4, 1), concerning a certain Sin-iqisham,
the sadbir of Suhi, who dwelt in Halis of Suhi. It would appear
from this document that Suhi bordered on Mari. Shamash-résh-
usur of a later period (see below), was shaknu of Suhi and Mari.
Suhi has been placed above Mari near the mouth of the Habur
(HB p. 260, n), and it has been localized below, near ‘Ana, although
it is recognized as a very indefinite place (Olmstead JAOS 38 p. -
241). If Anat, Hanat, and Anatho are different forms of the same
city’s name (see below), it would seem that Suhi must have been
below Mari.

These documents show that the Babylonian language, with the
usual Sumerian formulae, was used for the legal documents; yet
the terminology was peculiar to the district. Doubtless, back of
the documents is a different code of laws. For example, in the
case of any infraction of the rights bestowed by the king, there was
to be a fine of ten manehs of silver, and in addition the guilty party
was to have his head tarred with hot tar.

The nomenclature of these few contracts found in Hana is espe-
cially rich in important characteristics of the Amorite civilization.
They contain an unusually large number of Amorite names.
Among them are many West Semitic verbal forms, like Ja-as-ma-’-
“Da-gan, Ja-ri-tb-*Adad, etc. Of special importance is the fre-
quent occurrence of the god Dagan in the names, about a dozen of
which are compounded with that of the deity; and besides, several

royal scribe who made a copy of the Code of Hammurabi for the library
(CT 13:47). And surely the chronicler of early kings was sufficiently
intelligent to know this name. The same is true of the royal scribe of
Nabonidus, King of Babylon, when he referred to Hammurabi as living
700 years prior to Burna-Buriash. Even though the foreign name of this
ruler was in a few instances written differently, these facts should be suffi-
cient to prompt us to hold to the pronunciation these scribes deemed correct,
namely, Hammurabi. ;

° Cf. Ranke BE VI 1, Sign No. 198. Cf. also Ba-ah-lu-ti with Ba-’-lu-ti,
Ki-Sa-ah-bu-ut with Ki-Sa-’-bu-ut, ete. (Clay PN); and ma-ah-du-ti 191: 8
with ma-’-du-ti 3:10, ete., Amarna letters.

116 THE EMPIRE OF THE AMORITES.

individuals bear the title ‘‘priest of Dagan.’’ On the seal of
Isharlim, king of Hana, he calls himself ‘‘the beloved of Shamash
and Dagan.’’ In these few tablets several names contain that of
‘Ammu, as Jakun-Ammu, Bina-Ammi, Ammi-bail the king, Jasdi-
Hammu, Zimri-Hammu, and perhaps Abilama his son. Two wit-
nesses, Guri and Igitlim, and a man named Zimri-Hanata are
designated as akil of the god Amurru, which title was so commonly
used by the Amorites in Babylonia in the time of the First Dynasty.
* In this connection should be mentioned again the bringing back
of the images of Marduk and Sarpanitum from Hani by the Cas-
site king Agum-kakrime, and their reinstallation in Hsagila at
Babylon. It has been suggested that they had been carried off
during the Hittite invasion in the time of Samsu-ditana (HB p.
210); but if Hani and the kingdom Hana are to be regarded as
identical, it would seem that they had been removed during one of
the early Amorite invasions, for the Hittites, if they had car-
ried them away, would scarcely have left them in this region.

In 1885 Pinches published an inscription found by Rassam at
Sippar, which also refers to Hana. The inscribed object is an
oblong instrument partially of green stone, fixed into an orna-
mental bronze socket which is in the shape of a ram’s head, the
eyes of which are inlaid with some white composition. On one of
the broad surfaces is inscribed: ‘‘To Shamash, king of heaven
and earth, Tukulti(-ti)-Me-ir, king of the country Hana, son of
Tlu-shaba, king of Hana, for [the safety of] his land and his own
protection he has presented it.’? The text is printed with Assy-
rian type, but when Pinches published the inscription in 1883 he |
considered that the script pointed to the time of the king then
called Shalmaneser IJ. He mentions, however, that it contains a
few archaic forms (TSBA 8, 351 ff.). |

About fifty miles below the city Merra on the Euphrates is situ-
ated the present city ‘Ana. It is regarded as being indescribably
picturesque, and perhaps the most delightful city on the Euphrates.

‘Ana has long been identified with the ancient ‘Anatho. Xeno-
phon called the city Charmande. Isidore of Charax mentioned
Anatho as being on ‘‘an island in the Kuphrates of four stadia.’’
The emperor Julian, of the fourth century, mentioned Anatha as
being a city of importance, situated both on the islands of the river

XI. OTHER MESOPOTAMIAN KINGDOMS. 117

and on the shore. Yakut, about 1225, refers to ‘Anath as a strong
fortress on an island.

The city ‘Anatho® is doubtless to be identified with the city
Hanat mentioned in the tablet published by Pinches (CT 4, 1, see
above), and Anat of Suhi, referred to by Ashur-nasir-pal as a city
on an island in the Euphrates (I R 23: 15).

Whether there were twin cities, called ‘Ana, perhaps on the
bank of the river, and ‘Anatu on the chief island, now called Lub-
bad, to account for the different names handed down, remains to
be seen. Yakut in regarding ‘Anat a poetical form of the plural
of ‘Ana, is apparently mistaken. _

Unquestionably these names have been correctly associated with
the god and goddess Anu and Antu by Peters (Nippur I 144 ff.),
and it is highly probable that this was the chief centre of their
worship whence it was carried into the region lying east and west,
even to Egypt. This being true, ‘Anu and ‘Antu were Amorite
gods, as the writer has heretofore assumed (Amurru 142 f.;
see further Chapter XVII). If Hanat and Anat are the same, it
seems reasonable also that the name Hana, written in cuneiform
Ha-na, the name of the district, should be identified with the name
of the god written Ana, Anu, Anna, Ani, and especially since the
Semitic ayin which the name contains, as is shown by the West
Semitic forms, is very frequently reproduced by h in cuneiform;
ef. hammu, bahlu, yadah, ete., all reproducing the ayim, and espe-
cially in Amorite names.

The deity Hana is very probably the same as Hanu, Hani, and
Han, which occur in Amorite names of the Harran Census and
other Assyrian and Babylonian texts. This deity presided over
an advanced civilization in the West, as is determined by the dis-
covery of the ancient Sumerian prototype of the Hammurabi Code,,-
a single tablet of which has been preserved and is now in the Yale
Babylonian Collection. The colophon of the tablet reads ‘‘the

° On ‘Ana and ‘Anatho, see Cernik Studien Expedition 1872-73; Ains-
worth The Euphrates Expedition I 401 ff.; Peters Nippur or Explorations
on the Euphrates I 144 ff.; and Schoff Parthian Stations of Isidore of
Charax pp. 5 and 24; Scheil Annales de Tukulti Ninip II p. 42; Bell
Amurath to Amurath p. 97; and Olmstead JAOS 38 p. 241.

118 THE EMPIRE OF THE AMORITES.

law of Nisaba and Hani’’ (MI p. 19 f.). The goddess Nisaba,
‘‘the patroness of writing’’ (RA 8, 110), who wielded the stylus
and gave understanding to Gudea, together with Hani who was
‘‘the god of the scribes’’ and ‘‘lord of the seal,’’ are thus credited
with being the givers of the laws. Perhaps Nisaba (or Nidaba), —
the consort of Hani, will prove to have been also a Western deity,
but whose name, like Marduk and Nergal having been written with
a cuneiform ideogram, in its transmission suffered a change in the
pronunciation. It may prove to be the Sumerian name of Antu.
From these considerations it appears as if the laws which have
been credited to the Sumerians because written in their language
very probably had their origin among the Amorites. And since
the country was filled with these Western Semites during the Ham-
murabi period, and that dynasty was Amorite, it is not improbable
that the Hammurabi Code drew extensively from Amorite sources.
This may account for the fact that actions of Abraham are in
accordance with the Code, e. g., his treatment of Hagar, his adop-
tion of his slave and steward Eliezer, ete.

If the name of the city ‘Ana and Hana are identical, the ques-
tion arises was this the centre of the hegemony known as Hana
which embraced the region of the Kuphrates including the mouth
of the Habur. It is probable that the kingdom Hana was ruled by
a city and deity Hana. But is ‘Ana, with its twin city Anatho on
an island, whose name is written Anat and Hanat, the city in ques-
tion? If this should prove correct, it must be conceded that not
a few difficulties remain to be explained. As above, Suhi in the
time of Ashur-nasir-pal embraced the region in which Anat, the
supposed Anatho, was located; Shamash-résh-usur was governor
of Suhi and Mari; and as mentioned, in the tablet published by
Pinches (CT 4:1), which belongs to the early period, Suhi borders
on Mari. In other words it would seem as if ‘Ana or ‘Anat
belonged in these periods to Suhi. Naturally the second millen-
nium intervened, to which period the Hana contracts belong.
Then also if the city ‘Ana was the capital of the kingdom, the
question arises did Isharlim, king of Hana, and perhaps also
Ammi-bail, live in ‘Ana or near Tirga. The date of the marriage
contract above referred to, as well as the land deeds, would seem
to indicate that these kings were intimately identified with the

XI. OTHER MESOPOTAMIAN KINGDOMS. 119

region in which Tirga was situated. These questions cannot be
answered until we have additional light on the subject.

Shamash-résh-usur, who calls himself governor of Suhi and Mari,
mentions the restoration of a canal of Suhi and the building of a
city named Gabbari-ibni. Tiglath-pileser I says in one day he
raided the country from Suhi to Carchemish (Annals V: 44 ff.).
Several other important cities were located in this region. The
date for the fourth year of Hammurabi referred to above, records
the destruction of Malga as well as Mari. Tutul is another city in
this district, which may prove to be Thilutha of Ammianus Mar-
cellinus, now called Telbeis a little below ‘Ana,’ where Julian
informs us there was an impregnable fortress.

The kingdom of Harran lay north of Hana, in the region which
was called Aram or Aram Naharaim. There is an Arabic saying
to the effect that the first two cities rebuilt after the deluge were
Damascus and Harran, implying that these cities were looked
upon as very ancient. The name Harran, which means ‘‘road,’’
was doubtless so called because it was situated on the great trade
route. In short, it would seem that Harran was one of the most
important cities in Mesopotamia in ancient times.

Unfortunately, references to the city in early literature are
singularly wanting. The earliest reference to the district and city
are found in the Biblical traditions concerning the home of Abram.
Even the Amarna letters and the Egyptian inscriptions throw
little light on the region, unquestionably due to the fact that
Mitanni then had possession of the land. The Assyrian kings
claimed to have controlled the region from the time of Adad-
nirari I of the fourteenth century. From this time it was incorpo-
rated in the Assyrian kingdom.

Valuable information concerning the district, however, is
obtained from an Assyrian census taken in the seventh century.’
Though this period is far removed from the one under discussion,
nevertheless it is highly probable that much of the knowledge con-
cerning the culture can be applied also to the early period.

In this census of the district about Harran, such details of each

* Identified by Scheil Tukulti Ninip II p. 49.

8 Johns ADB.

120 THE EMPIRE OF THE AMORITES.

form of arable land as vineyards, orchards, gardens, etc., are
recorded. The names of the pater familias and his sons are given;
the women are merely enumerated, as are also the live stock. The
kingdom was divided up into units, called gam. Certain cities,
as Harran, Dir-Nabi, ete., were the centres of these gamit. The
Harran gdni, for example, included the towns ’Atnu, Badani,
Ianata, Saidi and Han-stiri, and the villages Arrizu and Kaparu.
The large list of cities, towns, and villages that are named in the
different gani of the kingdom will prove of the greatest impor-
tance when this region is explored, and excavations are conducted.
Attempts at identifying some have been made, as for example
Sarugi, which name is compared with Serug an ancestor of Abram,
is thought to be represented by the present town Serudj. Balibi
is thought to be on the river bearing that name, south of Harran;
Til-Nahiri is associated with Nahor, another ancestor of Abram.°
The personal names found in these tablets are of great impor-
tance in throwing light upon the cults of the district, for they
inform us what gods were worshipped. The list of gods embraces
Adad, Ata, Atar, Aja, Alla, Ashirta, Hani, Nabi, Nashhu, Shamshi,
Sér, Si’ or Sin, Tér, ete. The elements with which these names
are constituted are in many instances Aramaic. Besides the use
of the generic term for god, namely tzu, the deities occurring most
frequently are Si’ and Nashhu or Nashuh. Uarran was known to
be the great centre of the worship of the moon-god Sin; and we
here learn that the city was perhaps also the original habitat of
Nashhu, who became Nushu in Babylonia (see Chapter XVII).
Doubtless, as investigations continue other important states in this
Mesopotamian region will become known. |

°See Johns ibid., and also Kraeling Aram and Israel 25 f.

XIT
THE MEDITERRANEAN KINGDOMS

The various kingdoms or lands in the western part of Amurru
bore different names in different periods; also some of the names
used among one people differed from those used at the same time
by another. In the early Egyptian inscriptions, the Lebanon dis-
trict was called Retenu, while in the early Babylonian inscriptions
it was called Tidanu or Tidnu. In the time of Gudea, Tidnu,
together with Basalla, were designations of a mountainous district
of this country. In the early Egyptian inscriptions, Phoenicia
was called Zahi. In the Amarna letters this region including the
Lebanon district was called Amurru, as well as in the late Hgyp-
tian inscriptions; which name, as noted already, was used in
Babylonia for the entire land west of that country.

The name Tidnu was written with the cuneiform ideogram GIR-
GIR. This ideogram also represented the name Amurri. GIR-ra
also stood for Amurru.t In the Amarna letters one of the dis-
tricts probably of Palestine is called Gari("’Ga-ri).2 Winckler,
Hommel and Steuernagel located it in the Negeb. Weber seemed
to think that it was a mistake for ““Ga-(az-)-ri (Amarna-Tafeln
p. 1319). In view of the fact that Gazri is eight times referred
to in the letters as a city and not as a country, this does not seem
probable. Niebuhr, followed by Knudtzon, have suggested the
identification of the name with the present El-Ghor, the Jordan
plain. In Ta‘annek No 2, there is a city Gur-ra™. It is to be noted
that Gir figures prominently in Babylonian place or geographical
names, which in the light of other facts gives rise to the question,
whether there is any connection;*? and especially as the worship

1 Of. the equation %tin—GIR-ra = A-mur—din-ni (II R, 45:59e; V R,
8:85).
2 Cf. Amarna-Tafeln 256 : 23.
® A name of Akkad, as noted before, is Uri, which is the name also of
Amurru (see Chapter VII). It is, to say the least, an interesting coinci-
(121)

129 THE EMPIRE OF THE AMORITES.

of the West Semitic god Gir was carried to Babylonia (see Chap-
ter XVII). |

A kingdom which properly belonged to the western region of
Amurru is that which embraced the city of Damascus. The name
of the district is called Ubi in the Amarna letters and the name of
its chief principality is “Di-mas-qa, “Du-ma-as-qa and “Ti-ma-
as-gt. The region at this time was subject to Egypt. In the Old
Testament, the expedition of Abram to secure Lot, pursued the
eastern allies unto Hobah, which is on the left hand of Damascus.
Hobah has beeen identified with Ubi. In the time of David, a city
Zobah between Hamath and Damascus is mentioned as the princi-
pality of Rezin, who later established himself in Damascus. This
Aramaean kingdom lasted for over two centuries. The history of
this kingdom, which lost its political importance when Rezin in
concert with Pekah, king of Israel, rebelled against Assyria, is -
well known.

The fact that Damascus is not more frequently mentioned in the
inscriptions of the early period is not due to the fact that it did
not possess much importance. The ‘‘eye of the world,’”’ as Julian
called it, could hardly have been other than a city of the greatest
importance in the earliest period of the land’s history. The plain
of Damascus, regarded as the fairest of the four earthly paradises
by the Arab, a rich and beautiful oasis, irrigated by the cold and
clear mountain waters of the Barada, through which also flows the
Pharphar, and adorned with a wealth of parks and gardens, is a
veritable ‘‘pearl of the Hast.’’? But it was not only a great city
in the latter half of the second millennium B. C. Such a natural

dence that the name for the southern part of Babylonia has as its chief
component also an element similar to another Amorite geographical name.
For years it has been held that Shin‘ar (or Sumer) is derived from Kin-
gi(n), “‘land of the reed,’’ by assuming the palatisation of the k, which
becomes s before 7, and » becomes r; i. e., Kin-gin = Kin-gir = Singir =
Wait’. This explanation has been adopted by certain scholars. It seems
to the writer, however, since we have no justification for the reading Kin-
gi(n), that the second element in the name is gir, as shown by Ki-in-gi(r)-ra -
(SBH 180, obv. 24: 25, 26:27), Ki-en-gi(r)-ré(DU) (Gudea cyl. A 11:16;
21:25; B, 22:22). The apocopation of r in Sumerian is well known.

XII. THE MEDITERRANEAN KINGDOMS. 123

site in the very heart of the ancient Semitic world was inevitably
settled in the hoary past. Such a site on the border of the desert,
a veritable harbor, would never have ceased to be inhabited, and
would by reason of its situation be a city of craftsmen and a mart
for a large area of the Semitic world. Such considerations
prompted the writer to look for the city mentioned among the earli-
est records of Babylonia, which resulted in the identification of
Mash" or Ki-Mash* in the inscriptions of Gudea and in date for-
mulae of the Ur Dynasty, as the ancient name of the city; and
also in asserting that it is highly probable that Mesheq in the Old
Testament (Gen. 15: 2), is the same, namely Mash-qi. In other
words, Mesheq in the passage is explained by the gloss ‘‘that is
Damascus.’ There is a seal-cylinder in the Hermitage at
Petrograd of an ancient king, ‘‘Hu-un-ni-ni patesi of Ki-Mash",
governor of Madqa. . .,’’ which apparently belonged to an early
period.®

If the identification of the mountain Mashu of the Gilgamesh
epic with Hermon, and the city Ki-Mash™ with Mesheq (Damascus)
is correct (see Amurru 126), then it seems highly probable that
the early name of the country was Mash, which is to be identified
with Mash, ‘‘ason’’ of Aram (Gen. 10: 23)* This being true, the
name for the Syrian desert found in the Assyrian inscriptions,
although read "“Bar by some, and associated with the Hebrew
word midbar, is preferably to be read with others, "“Mash. The
Joktanites (Arabian tribes) dwelt in the land ‘‘from Mesha as thou
goest towards Sephar, the mountain of the Hast’’ (Gen. 10: 30).
Sephar has not been located, but it seems that the direction in the
description of the land, occupied by these descendants of Kber, was
from north to the southeast; and that Mesha is probably the city
referred to. On the deity Mash and Mashtu see Chapter XVII.

4The verse would then read: ‘‘And Abram said, O Lord God, what wilt
thou give me, seeing I go childless and my family is a son of Mesheq—that
is Damascus—Eliezer.’’ See Amurru 129 ff. and Miscl. Inscr. p. 2.

5 Of. Sayce ZA VI, 161; and VBI 176.

6 The parallel passage 1 Chron, 1:17, reads Meshek and the Septuagint
in both passages Mogox.

124 THE EMPIRE OF THE AMORITES.

There is a city Me-is-tu mentioned in the Amarna Letters (256:
25). This may prove to have been a city dedicated to the goddess.”

In the far north of the Mediterranean region there is a Semitic
centre which played an important réle in the earliest period of his-
tory, as it does even at the present time, namely Aleppo. It is long
since that Hallapu, probably also written Halman, has been iden-
tified by scholars with Aleppo.’ Its great distance, however, from
Babylonia, as well as other reasons, is responsible for hesitation
on the part of some in accepting this identification.® The nat-
ural features of the city make it another location that would early
be sought by people; and this, it would seem, adds to the reason-
ableness of the identification.

Two fragments of a historical epic which deals with events of
the time of Shar-banda and Tammuz, two kings who ruled in the
earliest era known, refer to wars against Elam below, Halma
above, and Tidnum in the West (see Chapter VIII). Halma is
identified as another form of the name Halman. 5

A text which has just been published by Barton is of the greatest
importance in this connection (MBI 1). It is the earliest reli-
gious text known. It was probably written, as he maintains, about
the time of Sargon the founder of the dynasty of Akkad, who
ruled, the present writer inclines to think, much earlier than the
late date now generally assigned to him. Barton reads the pas-
sage in the text: Tispak-ra ki za-ba-wnu-sv% and translates: ‘‘To
Ishtar from the land of Haleb.’’ This text identifies the goddess
Ashirta, as the present writer prefers to write the name, with the
city Halabu. We then recall the passage in the prologue of the
Code of Hammurabi (IIT 50 f.) which reads: ‘‘Who put into exe-
cution the laws of Aleppo, who makes the heart of Ashirta rejoice,
the illustrious prince, the lifting up of whose hands Adad recog-

“Tf the writer’s reading En-Mashtu for the Aramaic transcription of
4Nin-IB, namely MIN, is correct (see above and Amurru p. 200), the
town “Me-1s-tu may be the “Nin-IB of the Amarna Letters.

8 See Delitzsch Paradies p. 275; KAT® 47 ete.

° The fact that Halabu and Bit Karkara are mentioned in the prologue
to the Hammurabi Code between Girsu and Adab is suggestive that they
were Babylonian cities; but this is by no means conclusive. That this city
was a part of Babylon, as has been inferred, seems impossible.

XII. THE MEDITERRANEAN KINGDOMS. 195

nizes; who appeases the heart of Adad the warrior in Karkar,
who reestablishes the appointments of the temple H-ud-gal-gal.’’
These two passages point to the fact that this is the most impor-
tant centre of Ashirta-Ishtar worship known; and also, together

with the first mentioned passage, indicate that the city was one of —

great prominence in the early period of Babylonian history.

Ashirta-Ishtar has been regarded by some scholars as a uni-
versal Semitic goddess, who became a male deity in some lands.
Her worship, however, originally had a centre somewhere in the
Semitic world. The texts from the Mesopotamian region would
not lead us to suppose that her habitat had been there. The view
that Ashirta-Ishtar had her origin in Arabia and is a development
from the male god Athtar has little in it; nor was she borrowed
from Babylonia. In the light of the fact that the cult of Ashirta
prevailed so extensively in Western Amurru, and was carried com-
paratively early to Egypt, it would seem that her habitat was
somewhere in the Mediterranean district. Surely the two texts
referred to, the one belonging to the early Semitic period, and the
other to the time of Hammurabi, lead us to believe not only that
Halabu, or Aleppo, is the most important centre of her worship
known, but also that it was probably her original habitat. This
fact may throw light upon the Cappadocian tablets, which furnish
us with many names compounded with Ashir and Ashirta. Prob-
ably the home of each was in this northwestern region of the
Semitic world. |

Halabu was also a centre of Adad worship, of which we have
several indications in the inscriptions. The Code of Hammurabi
in the passage above referred to, as well as the syllabaries, point
to this fact. In CT 25 16: 22 ¢Il-Ha-al-la-bu—IM. Naturally it
is possible that another of the many names of the storm-god may
be implied, as Ashir, Uru, ete., but for the present Adad is under-
stood.’ Prefixing and pronouncing the word ‘‘god’’ besides
writing the determinative for deity are West Semitic customs, to
which the writer has previously referred. In short, it is highly
probable that when excavations are conducted in this region, light
will be forthcoming that will show not only that this is a very

1° Of. also eqli “Sin 4Fa-la-ba*i VS 7, 95: 4.

126 THE EMPIRE OF THE AMORITES.

ancient seat of Semitic culture but the home of the Ashirta cult
(see also Chapter XVII). |

From the Egyptian inscriptions it is ascertained that at least .
several of the coastal cities, notably Byblos, were in existence in
the third millennium B. C., and, as stated, there is reason for
believing the city had a much greater antiquity (see Chapter XIV).
Simyra, another city on the coast mentioned in the Amarna texts,
the modern Sumra, is also known in the texts of the third millen-
nium B. C., having been identified with Simuru mentioned in the
date formula of the 55th year of Dungi, king of Ur, about 2400 B. C.
Some hold that Simuru was situated in the mountainous district
to the east of the Tigris, because the subjection of the four cities
Urbillu, Simuru, Lulubu, and Ganhar formed the object of a single
campaign (SA, p. 287). This does not seem conclusive, for it is
quite possible that Lulubu was chastised at the beginning or at the
ending of the year’s campaign. Urbillum may have been a city
in the vicinity of Simuru. On his following campaign, Dungi
destroyed Humurti and K?i-Mash", WHumurti has long since been
identified by some with the Biblical Gomorrah, being a good tran-
script of that name in cuneiform; and Ki-Mash", as noted above,
is very probably Damascus. Certainly Dungi in gaining the
title ‘‘king of the four quarters,’’ had at least conquered part of
Amurru. Here properly the Amorite kingdom of the Lebanon
region can be referred to, which belonged to the latter half of the
second millennium B. C.

The letters written in the Babylonian language and script to
Amenhotep III and Amenhotep IV by kings and subject princes,
including copies of letters sent from Egypt, in the fifteenth cen-
tury B. C., enable us to lift the curtain and get an intimate acquain-
tance with the political situation of Western Amurru at that time.
The discovery of the Hittite archives at Boghaz-k6i, an ancient
capital of the Hittites, written in the same language and script,
supplements our knowledge of this period from a different source
in a most remarkable manner; and also throws light on more than
a century of years following the Amarna times. These documents
include treaties made by the Hittites with kingdoms and states in
Amurru (see MDOG 35). For years the Amarna tablets have
been discussed and the light offered by the Boghaz-k6i tablets has

XII. THE MEDITERRANEAN KINGDOMS. 127

also been incorporated in the histories of the ancient Near East.
When more knowledge of the early peoples of Amurru is forth-
coming through excavations and research, these inscriptions will
figure prominently in a comprehensive reconstruction of the land’s
history.

In the reign of Thutmose I (1547?-1501), the Mitanni nation,
probably an Aryan people, is found occupying Aram, having taken
possession of the old Semitic centre in some previous period.
Mitanni apparently was a strong nation, and had great influence
upon Amurru and Babylonia. Though the Cassites were ruling at
Babylon, we find the nomenclature of the land contains a great
many Mitannian names. In the Amarna letters, many of the city
princes of Amurru also bear them. How is this to be accounted
for? Did Mitanni at some previous time control Amurru along
the Mediterranean? ‘Three or four decades after the Hyksos were
driven out of Egypt, Thutmose I is found contesting the supremacy
of Mitanni. Probably we shall later on find that Mitanni played
a role in the movement that brought the Hyksos into Hegypt.
Thutmose IV, a century later, desiring to establish friendly rela-
tions with Mitanni, secured the daughter of Artatama, the king,
for his son in marriage. She is thought to be the mother of his
son, Amenhotep III. The two kings of Mitanni who followed,
Shuttarna and Dushratta, also sought alliance with Egypt.

In the Amarna period, however, Mitanni’s power was waning’
and seemed to give way to the Hittites. Internal troubles prob-
ably were responsible for this, for we find Itakama, prince of the
city Kinza, who belonged to the ruling house of Mitanni, in league
with the Hittites. Shubbiluliuma, their king, having previously
suffered at the hands of Mitanni, saw his opportunity to push fur-
ther south and make inroads upon the Egyptian districts and
Mitanni. In league also with Abdi-Ashirta and Aziru, Amorite
princes in the Lebanon district who were subject to Egypt, he suc-
ceeded in-stirring up a revolt. These princes worked in the inter-
ests of the Hittites and yet maintained their relations with Egypt
by a duplicity that is almost incredible. The Phoenician prince
Rib-Addi of Byblos insistently made efforts to open the eyes of
the Pharaoh, but in this he failed. When asked why he had
taken Simyra, Abdi-Ashirta pleaded that he had done so because

128 THE EMPIRE OF THE AMORITES.

he was asked to deliver the city from the Shehlal. At last the

insistent declarations of Rib-Addi and other loyal princes had
effect, and the prince’s treachery became clear; whereupon an
army under the Egyptian Amanappa was sent, ue Simyra was
retaken, and with the land Naharin, was restored to Egyptian
authority.

Shubbiluliuma, not wishing to force matters at this time, aban-
doned Itakama of Kinza and withdrew. When the Egyptians had -
retired he fell upon districts of Mitanni, and without meeting
Dushratta, marched in force into Naharin. Some princes resisted ;
cities were captured; and the people of Qatna and the land of
Nuhashshi were carried off to the Hittite region. Itakama, who
had in the meantime reéstablished his relations with the Pharaoh,
together with his father Shutarna, attacked the Hittites; but they
were defeated, and carried away.

On the accession of Amenhotep IV to the throne, the kings =
Mitanni and Babylonia sent assurances of their sympathy on his
father’s death; and Shubbiluliuma also wrote him, recognizing
his sovereignty in Asia. At this time he refrained from doing
any overt acts which might arouse him. The Pharaoh, however,
understanding the situation, had no desire to continue relations
with him. Later the Hittite king wrote asking why he had not
continued the correspondence which had been kept up by his father.
A Hittite embassy even appeared at the new capital, which had
been created by Amenhotep; but he abandoned relations with the
Hittites, for they had encroached upon his land.

Abdi-Ashirta having been killed, his place was taken by Aziru,
his son, who had already assisted the Hittites in taking Qatna, and
in inspiring the princes of Ubi, the district about Damascus, to

revolt. With the assistance of the men of Arvad he attacked .

Simyra, which with Byblos alone had held out, for Irkata, Ullaza,
Sidon, Beirut, and other cities had been defeated, and had gone
over to him, while many other cities had been captured. During
the time this had transpired, the faithful vassal, Rib-Addi of
Byblos, continued to write beseechingly many times to his king,
exposing the treachery of Aziru and begging for help; but his
efforts were futile; in the end he was killed, and his city taken.

XII. THE MEDITERRANEAN KINGDOMS. 129

Phoenicia, and the Lebanon region north of it, including the
Orontes valley, about as far as Antioch, acknowledged the leader-
ship of the Amorite Aziru. 7

The disaffection of the northern Amorites had its effect upon
the Canaanite princes. Several, as Milkili, Labaya, Zimrida and
others, followed the same course of treachery that Abdi-Ashirta
and Aziru had indulged in. Some of the southern princes, Biridiya
of Megiddo, Abdi-Hiba of Jerusalem and others remained faithful
to Egypt and insistently appealed, as did Rib-Addi, for help, to
stem the tide of the Habiri and Suttt; but finally the land suc-
cumbed.

Aziru was summoned to appear before the Pharaoh after he had
captured the cities and killed Rib-Addi, Abi-milki, and other
princes. After some delay he appeared at the Egyptian court,
and succeeded, through influence, in convincing Amenhotep that
he was loyal; and having acknowledged Egyptian suzerainty, was
returned to his land and reinstated, by the grace of Egypt, as a
ruler of a kingdom of considerable extent. But his allegiance to
Hgypt, if he was actually sincere, was of short duration. Shub-
biluliuma had sent his mercenaries, the Habiri, to assist him in
capturing the cities, and he had regarded him in consequence as his
vassal. He therefore attacked and defeated Aziru, who cast him-
self at his feet, and swore allegiance. He was compelled to enter
into a treaty; and an annual tribute of 300 shekels in gold was
placed upon him. Aziru in the treaty is named as ‘‘the king of
the Amorites.’’ Although the Habiri had assisted the northern
as well as the southern princes to throw off the yoke of Egypt, it
is not clear that Aziru’s kingdom included Canaan. From the
treaty drawn up in the time of Ramses II, it would seem that the
Pharaoh had concluded an alliance with Shubbiluliuma, leaving him
in possession of Amurru. With Aziru’s grandson, Abbi-Teshshub,
the terms of the Amorite vassalage were renewed in a treaty which
Mursil, the son of Shubbiluliuma, made with him.

The Hittites continued to maintain their authority in the district
for four or five decades, until the stupor that enveloped Egypt,
which had been brought on by Amenhotep IV, had disappeared.
When Seti I came to the throne, he pushed through Palestine into

130 THE EMPIRE OF THE AMORITES.

Phoenicia, where the restoration of Egyptian supremacy was
probably welcomed. He crossed the Jordan and set up his bound-
ary stele in the Hauran. On a later campaign he met Hittite
forces farther north, but it seems he only succeeded in reéstablish-
ing Egypt’s boundary south of the Lebanons. During the time
when Ramses II was active in Amurru, the Amorites under Put-
Ahi threw off their allegiance to the Hittites; but this king was
later reinstated on the same terms of vassalage, and Gashuliawi,
a Hittite princess, was given him in marriage. The Hittite king
stipulated in the treaty that the sovereignty of the land should
pass to the son and descendants of his daughter (see MDOG 35,
43 ff.).

In the treaty later drawn up by Ramses II and Hattusil I, the
boundary between the two lands is not mentioned. Probably it
was not advanced beyond the point established by his father;
although this is also indefinite. In the rocks near Beirut, in his
early years he had carved a stele; at this time he carved two more,
which may mark the extreme point of his supremacy. This being
true, the Lebanon country north of Phoenicia, ruled by Put-Ahi,
continued to be Hittite. Since the Solomonic kingdom did not
embrace Phoenicia and the coastal cities further north, it is not
unlikely that this kingdom continued to maintain its identity for
several centuries; not only in quasi-independence, but probably,
at least for part of the time, free from the suzerainty of other
nations. On the Amorite kings who ruled on the east and west
side of the Jordan see Chapter XV. |

XIII

AMORITES IN CAPPADOCIA

As early as 1881 Pinches called attention to two tablets, one in
the British Museum and the other in the Louvre, which he con-
sidered were written in an unfamiliar language, and which because
the tablets had come from the neighborhood of Caesarea, he called
Cappadocian (PSBA Nov. 1881 11 ff.). A little later Professor
Wm. M. Ramsay, at the suggestion of Professor Sayce, searched
in the bazaars of Caesarea for additional specimens of these tab-
lets, five of which he was able to secure. Subsequently M. Chantre,
the French explorer, excavated Kara Hyuk ‘‘the black mound’’,
so called because it is a mass of charred and burnt remains, about
fifteen miles to the north-east of Caesarea, where the inscriptions
were said to have been found. Besides tablets, considerable
pottery and other antiquities were discovered at the site. (Mis-
sion en Cappadoce 71 ff.)

In 1889 M. Golénischeff, the Russian Egyptologist, published
a group of twenty-four tablets coming from the same quarter,
which he secured in the bazaars at Caesarea, Constantinople, and
Cairo. He determined that they were written in an Assyrian dia-
lect; and was able to read most of the names. Later Delitzsch
published an important philological study of these tablets; which
was followed by a discussion of them on the part of Jensen. Sub-
sequently Sayce and Peiser published transliterations and trans-
lations of a selection of the texts. Other tablets have since been
published by Pinches, Sayce, Scheil, and Thureau-Dangin.! It
was early pointed out by Sayce and others that the people of this
district observed a week of five days (hamustuwm), and reckoned
time by a succession of officers called eponyms (dimmu), a custom
which we know the Assyrians observed in the first millennium B. OC.
These facts considered in connection with the use in names of the

‘For a bibliography of the Cappadocian literature, see Johns Schweich

Lectures 1912 88 f.
(131)

ee

132 THE EMPIRE OF THE AMORITES.

god Ashir or Ashur were responsible for the assertion that the
people represented a colony from Assyria.

More recently Sayce has proposed that the tablets show that the
silver, copper and lead mines of the Taurus were worked for Baby-
lonian firms; that roads and walled cities had been built in that
region in order that troops could maintain order’ for the Baby-
lonian merchants and their agents; and that the soldiers were
mainly drafted from Assyria, which was then a province of Baby-
lonia.2. The view that the names represent Assyrians, and that
the tablets are dated according to Assyrian epcnyms is shared
also by Meyer.? It is Jastrow’s idea that the discovery of these
tablets shows that the Babylonians had established an outpost here
against the Hittites; that they are proof of active business trans-
actions between the Euphrates valley and Asia Minor; and that
they are of the greatest value in illustration of trade routes that
must have been established through the heart of Asia Minor at this
early period.* It is not impossible that these observations will
ultimately prove to be fact; but nevertheless they must for the ©
present be considered as wholly hypothetical.

The only connection with Babylonia found on the tablets is in
the impression of a seal found upon one of them (RA VIIT 142) ;
the inscription of which reads:

Tbi-Sin ~ Ur-*Shar-banda

The mighty king ~ Seribe

King of Ur Son of Ur-Nigin-Gar
King of the four quarters thy servant

The design of the seal portrays a seated deity, before whom stands
a demigod leading the worshipper. This seal which has its
inscription written in Sumerian is in every way an exact counter-
part of many seals found in Babylonia belonging to the Ur
Dynasty; and is of a type altogether different from other seal
impressions on the tablet. It also should be added that the indivi-
dual bearing the name that is on the seal is not found in the text.
With the exception of this seal the art of the others on the tablet

2 Museum Journal IX p. 149.
8 Reich und Kultur der Chetiter p. 51.
4The War and the Bagdad Railway p. 40.

XIII. AMORITES IN CAPPADOCIA. 133

that have been published seems to be of a different type, and shows
characteristics which are peculiar to the seals that Ward has desig-
nated as Syro-Hittite. The inscriptions of eight seal impressions
of different tablets published by Thureau-Dangin, with the one
mentioned above, are composed of two lines, written phonetically,
an example of which is:
Tb-ni-4Adad
son of I-ti-A-Sur.

The art, as shown in the reproductions of the seals, which are not
so clear as one could desire, seems to show that it also is different
from what is recognized as Babylonian.

What appears to be the only actual connection with eer that
can be shown is to be found in a seal impression on another tablet
from Kara Eyuk, published by Sayce, which bears the follow-
ing inscriptions: Sarru-kénu(?) pa-te-si 4A-sir mar I-[ku-num]
pa-te-sitA-[sir] ‘‘Sar[ gon], priest-king or Ashir, son of I[kunum],
priest-king of Ashir’’ (Babylomiaca IV 66 ff.). A transcription
of the inscription has been published, but not a photographic
reproduction of the seal impression. Whether any images accom-
pany the inscription is not stated.

Sayce restored the name I-[ku-num], and ingeniously suggested
that Sarru-kénu is an abbreviation of the name Sar-ken-kata-Asir,
whose name follows Ikunum as an ancestor of Ashir-rim-nisheshu
(KTA 63: 6) on the supposition that in this inscription they are
father and son; although close relationship cannot exist between
the other three kings or patesis who restored the wall of Ashur
during a period of about seven hundred years.

In the advanced notice of the Ashur excavations reference is
made to a Sharru-ki-in son of Ikunum in a newly discovered
inscription (MDOG 38 p. 33, also 49 p. 50). It would seem, there-
fore, that Sayce’s suggestion is probably correct, although it is
possible that there was a later ruler named Shar-ken-kata-Ashir.
Moreover, the inscription of the seal found on the Cappadocian
tablet refers to Sargon, son of I[kunum], who were both patesis
of Ashur.

This seal, besides the employment of the five-day week (hamus-
tum), the dating by archons for reckoning time (limmu), and the
deity Ashir found in personal names, represent the points of con-

134 THE EMPIRE OF THE AMORITES.

tact with Assyria that have been pointed out; and the seal impres-
sion discussed above is the only point of contact with Babylonia,
except that the Babylonian syllabary is used. The working of
mines by Babylonian firms, the building of roads and fortresses as
outposts against the Hittites, the drafting of soldiers from
Assyria, the business relations between the Euphrates Valley and
Asia Minor, although possible, are purely conjectural ideas. In
the many Cappadocian tablets published the writer sees no basis
for any of these statements. On the contrary, they are business
and legal documents such as are commonly known as contracts and
decisions, as well as letters of the character usually found in Baby-
lonian temple archives. The transactions referred to are local
business affairs; and indicate a state of society quite independent
of far-off Babylonia or Assyria.

The tablet with the Babylonian seal gives the names of three
witnesses, Zilulu, ASur-dan, and Ikunum, and mentions their seals.
On the tablet, however, are five seal impressions, three of which
bear names Ikunum, Amur-A&ir and the Ur-‘Sar-banda the royal
scribe on the seal in question. The two impressions without names
could be those of Zilulu and Asur-dan, and that of the other, the
seribe who wrote the tablet. But in what capacity was the seal of
Amur-A&ir used, as his name is not in the text? :

The seal of Ur-4Shar-banda may have belonged to a royal scribe
who drew up the document; in which case the tablet was written

~ in the time of Ibi-Sin, King of Ur. It of course may have been

used at a later time by one of the contracting parties of the docu-
ment or a witness who had come into possession of it. The occur-
rence of the seal bearing the name Amur-ASsir must be explained
in this way; for as stated, no individual of that name is mentioned
in the document. However, since we know that the control of the
Ur kings very probably reached into this region, and because
the script of the tablet can be said to belong to this general period,
it is possible that the scribe was a representative of the crown.
This being true, how is the existence of the names in the tablets
which are compounded with that of the deity Ashir or Ashur, and
the observance of the hamustum and limmu to be explained, if what
scholars assert is true, namely that these are importations from
Assyria? If that is correct, it follows that they are indications

XIII. AMORITES IN CAPPADOCIA. 135

of a greater antiquity for the Assyrian civilization than is at pres-
ent recognized. But it scarcely seems reasonable that Assyrian
soldiers in the control and service of Babylonia would have had
such influence upon the culture of the district as the introduction
of such institutions as the hamustum, and that documents would
be dated according to Assyrian reckoning. Rather does it seem,
if these are actually importations, that Assyria dominated the dis-
trict in some earlier period, of which also we do not have at pres-
ent the slightest indication. _

The tablet with the Assyrian seal discovered in Cappadocia,
and written in the Cappadocian dialect, raises questions even more
difficult to answer. Is it actually a seal of the patesi; and if so,
was he present in person; or was it used by some official to give
authority to his action? If there was one ruler named Ilu-shuma
in the early period who was a contemporary of Sumu-abu, the
founder of the Babylon dynasty, Sargon would have ruled about
the time of the grandfather of Hammurabi. If, as Meyer proposes,
there were two early rulers named Ilu-shuma (Geschichte $463),
then Sargon could have ruled perhaps after the time of Hammu-
rabi. Moreover, the question is, did the jurisdiction of Assyria
extend to this far away district of Asia Minor also in this period?
If the kings of the Ur Dynasty controlled this region at an earlier
time, did Assyria, when Ur lost its supremacy, come into posses-
sion of it? Ifso, Assyria must have played a role in the overthrow
of the Ur Dynasty, of which also there is at present not the slight-
est indication. Moreover, in the time of Hammurabi, as above, we
know Babylon was the suzerain over Assyria.

At Yuzgat a large tablet was found written in the same script,
but in another dialect, probably the same as the tablets from
Arzawa in the Amarna collection. This tablet is in possession of
the University of Liverpool. Another, purchased at Aleppo, now
in the possession of Mr. Berens, which was published by Sayce
(PSBA 1907 91 ff.), probably came from a Hittite source in -
northern Syria. In the spring of 1914 about two thousand tablets
were discovered somewhere in Cappadocia, a largé number of
which are now in the British Museum, the Ashmolean Museum and
the Bodleian Library at Oxford. Unfortunately these have not
yet been published or deciphered.

136 THE EMPIRE OF THE AMORITES.

The discovery of the Amarna tablets written by princes through-
out Western Asia has shown how extended was the use of the Baby-
lonian syllabary and also the language in the middle of the second
millennium. Some of the letters show that the script was used
also for other languages. The same is demonstrated by the dis-
covery of the Hittite archives at Boghaz-kéi, not far from Kara
Kyuk on the other side of the Halys. In other words, we are
familiar with an extensive use of the Babylonian language and
seript in the second millennium B. C. in this part of the ancient
civilized world.

The Kara Hyuk tablets, we are led to believe, belong to the third
millennium, which supposition is based largely upon the script
being regarded as early Babylonian. The question therefore
arises, how much earlier was what we call the Babylonian script in
use in this part of the ancient world? It is known that Babylonian
kings a millennium earlier than the Ur Dynasty exploited this
region. Were their language and script then introduced?
Searcely the surface has been scratched in this vast region. Most
of what we know at present of the peoples who lived there has been
gained through what is called surface research. Kara Eyuk,
Boghaz-k6oi, and a few other sites have been examined, but what
revelations will excavations at other sites in Lycia, Phrygia, Cili-
cia or Pamphylia bring forth. A civilization comparable in anti-
quity and development with that of Egypt and Babylonia doubtless
existed in Asia Minor. The discovery of the Minoan civilization
in Crete dating about 2800 B. C. offers a foretaste of what is to be
expected. The ruin hills of Asia Minor when excavated will yield
materials not only for the solution of innumerable problems, but
also for knowledge of undreamed of peoples and civilizations prior
to the dawn of the Greek period. Not many years ago nothing was
known of the Hittites save what is contained in the Old Testament.
To-day largely through contemporaneous records from other lands,
and also through some of their own, we know considerable about
the Hittite empire which played such an important réle among the
great nations. Presumably through excavations other peoples of
this district will become known, the knowledge of whom may com-
pel a radical readjustment of our ideas concerning origins and the
early history of Western Asia.

XIII. AMORITES IN CAPPADOCIA. 187

While, as above, the syllabary used in these Cappadocian tablets
is what we call early Babylonian, it must be kept in mind that the
handwriting of these inscriptions is peculiar to the district. Cap-
padocian tablets can usually be recognized by their general appear-
ance. The script has peculiarities, and as mentioned, they are
written in what is regarded as a dialect, under the influence of the
Hittite or some other tongue of the region. The tablet with the
Babylonian seal impression was scarcely written by the royal Baby-
lonian scribe whose seal it bore. Nor is it likely that the seal
belonged to a local scribe, for the names of the seal are inscribed in
Sumerian. Then also, as mentioned, the art of this seal is typical
Babylonian. In short, the character and contents of the docu-
ments, the forms used in the contracts, the language, the script, ete.,
do not show that they were written by Babylonians or Assyrians,
or in the interests of Babylonians or Assyrians; but imply rather
that they are the products of a civilization that may have existed
for a long time in this region. Further, the custom of dating ~
according to eponyms shows that there was already a provincial
organization of an advanced order.

Among the personal names in the Cappadocian tablets there are
some that have been recognized as Hittite or non-Semitic; but
most of them are West Semitic or Amorite. The deities that
figure prominently in the names are Amurru, Ashir (or Ashur),
Ashirta, Anu, Adad, Shamash, ete. Not only do the deities show
that the people are Amorite, but also the elements with which the
gods’ names are compounded. Nota few of these have been Baby-
lonized, owing to the use of that language and script, but the mass
of them clearly show their Amorite origin.

To what extent Western Semites moved into Asia Minor is not
known. It would seem that the mines in the vicinity of Kara Hyuk
would have been as attractive to them as to others. Whence came
the cultural elements which these people had in common with
Assyrians is a question. Probably if we had more knowledge of
the early history of the intermediate country, prior to the occupa-
tion of the Mitanni people, we would have light on this ores
which for reasons given awaits solution.

XIV

EGYPT AND AMURRU

Egyptian scholars agree that there was a Semitic element that
vigorously asserted itself in the beginnings of Egyptian civiliza-
tion. The language of Egypt lexicographically and grammatically
shows this. Also craniological research has shown that the north-
ern Egyptian in the early period, in contrast with the southern,
shows what is called a decidedly Semitic or Semite-Libyan type,
the same as found on a First Dynasty representation of a Bedouin
from the First Cataract. The introduction of sun-worship is also
credited to this Semitic element, because it is generally supposed
to have emanated from Western Asia.

It is recognized that during the dark period of several centuries
from about 2350 B. C., when Memphis was given up as the capital,
and the kingdom was split up into petty principalities as in pre-
historic times, many Semitic loan words were introduced.! It is
to be noted that it was during this very period that the Amorites
invaded Babylonia and established the dynasties of oe Larsa
and Babylon. (See Chapter VIII.)

In the first half of the second millennium B. C., an Asiatic people
called the Hyksos completely dominated Egypt for a century, or,
as some hold, a much longer time. Contemporaries called them
‘‘Asiatics’’ or ‘‘barbarians.’’ The late traditions of Manetho
eall them Arabians and Phoenicians, while Josephus, in his dia-
tribe against Apion, calls them Hebrews. When Ahmose I (1580-
1557 B. C.) captured Avaris in the eastern part of the Delta, he
drove them northward into Amurru. He even pursued them as
far as the land Zahi (Phoenicia). It was not until more than half
a century later that Thutmose III was able to break up finally the

* Bondi Dem Hebriisch-phonezischen Sprachzweige angehorige Lehn-
worter in hieroglyphischen und hieratischen Texten; also Burchardt, Alt-
kanaaniischen Fremdworte und Eigennamen im Aegytischen.

(138)

XIV. - EGYPT AND AMURRU. 139

coalition of the Amorite kingdoms, which had their centre at
Kadesh on the Orontes.

Besides three rulers of the Hyksos who bore the name Apophis,
three others are known, Khian, Khen-zer and Jacob-hur or
Jacob-el.2. The last mentioned is Semitic, and perhaps also one
or two of the others. Prof. J. H. Breasted thinks that it is not
impossible that some chief of the Jacob-tribes of Israel for a
time gained the leadership in this obscure age, and that such an
incident would account surprisingly well for the entrance of these
tribes into Hgypt. This, in his judgment, would make the Hebrews
in Egypt a part of the Bedouin allies of the Kadesh or Hyksos
empire (HE p. 220).

Prof. W. M. Miiller, in his recent work on Egyptian mythology,
informs us that a very considerable part of Egyptian religious
thought was derived from or was influenced by the mythology of
Asia. He thinks it must be assumed that at On-Heliopolis, the
earliest centre of Egyptian religion, which was situated at the
entrance of the caravan route from the east, there was a constant
interchange of ideas in the most remote periods. An illustration
of this is to be found in the Semitic myth of the conflict between
Marduk and Tiamat, the god of light and the primeval monster of
the abyss, which reached Egypt after 2500 B. C., where it gave rise
to the story of the gigantic serpent Apop (’Azodis), the enemy of
the sun-god. Miller says that only faint traces of the recreation
of the world from the careass of the abysmal dragon are found, but
other ideas bearing on the conflict with the monster recur in many
variants (HM 104 ff.). The introduction of this myth into Hgypt
in this early period, prior to the time any influence from Babylonia
and Assyria had been felt, and nearly two millenniums earlier than
it can be shown that the Assyrians had made use of it, is a most
interesting substantiation of the position taken by the writer on
its Amorite origin and especially since it only appeared, as far as
is known, in Assyria in the time of Ashurbanipal (Amurru 44 ff.).

In the more primitive stages of Egyptian civilization, when
ancient local tradition played such an important role, Miller does

2 Petrie, it should be added, has proposed the identification of many other
names of Hyksos rulers.

140 THE EMPIRE OF THE AMORITES.

not think the borrowings consisted in more than the religious
motifs; at least the actual names of gods in this period do not

seem to have been generally appropriated. An early exception, -

however, was Ba‘alath, the goddess of Byblos in Phoenicia, who
became known and venerated in Egypt soon after 2000 B. C., when
she was identified with Hat-hoér (see EM p. 154). It seems to
the present writer that perhaps Orion, whose name appears to be a
formation from Uru on dn, like Shimshén, is also an exception.
He was early brought to Egypt, where he was the ‘‘hero of the
sky,’’ and identified with the sun-god Horus, and associated also
with Osiris. Doctor H. F. Lutz proposes that this deity may also
prove an exception; Osiris, he thinks, is of West Semitic or Amorite
origin; and was probably also borrowed by the Sumerians or early
Babylonians. Among the reasons given by Lutz is the comparison
of Osiris’ epithet Usr wnn nfrw ‘‘Osiris the good Being’’ with
the Sumerian or Babylonian Asar li dug (often read Silig-lu-Sar)
which has the same meaning; and also because of the connections
between the Osirian mythology and the Amorite Tammuz-Adonis
myth which was introduced in Egypt as early as the Pyramid texts,
3000 B. C., or earlier. Here should be added also the fact that
the Pyramid texts narrate how after Osiris was murdered by Set,
a part of his body was washed ashore in a- great chest at Nedyt,
whither Isis his wife journeyed to reclaim it. Plutarch’s narra-
tive of the myth makes Byblos the place where his body was found.
Breasted thinks this may be Nedyt, although it was later localized
at Abydos. If, however, Byblos was introduced into the myth, this
occurred before the thirteenth century B. C.2. The parallel between
the Babylonian Tammuz and the Egyptian Osiris has been pointed
out by Baudissin (Adonis and Eshmun 1911), and others. Barton
maintains that Osiris and Tammuz are independent survivals and
manifestations of a primitive cult once common to both Hamites
and Semites, but originally Osiris and Isis were Hamitic, while
Tammuz and Ishtar had their origin in Arabia (JAOS 25 213 ff.).
In the light of all that is known, however, there seems little reason
for doubting that Tammuz and Ishtar are Amorite; and it is not

* Development of Religious Thought in Ancient Egypt, p. 26.

XIV. EGYPT AND AMURRU. 141

impossible that the Asiatic connections of Osiris and Isis, that have
been suggested, may also prove correct.

Following the Hyksos occupation of Egypt, or after 1600 B. C.,
Miiller says the worship of Asiatic deities became fashionable in
Egypt, being propagated by many immigrants, mercenaries, mer-
chants, etc., from Syria. Ba‘al is described as the god of thunder,
dwelling on mountains, or in the sky, and terrible in battle. Since
Ba‘al means simply ‘‘lord’’ and is a generic title of deities in
Palestine, the kind of a god referred to was probably one like
Amurru or Adad. Other gods imported from the Amorite land
were Resheph or Reshpu, who is once called Reshpu-Sharamana,
a syncretistic formation which combines the names of Reshpu with
another Amorite god, Shalman or Shalmu; Astarte (Ashirta),
‘‘the mistress of heaven,’’ whose chief temple was at Memphis,
but who was also worshipped at Ramses and elsewhere; Qedesh,
pictured, like the nude goddess of Babylonia, standing on a lion
and holding in one hand a serpent, and in the other, flowers; Asit,
probably another form of Astarte; Anat, who like Astarte is war-
like and sensual; and a few other goddesses not so frequently men-
tioned, namely Atum, probably the consort of the god of Edom,

Nukara or Nugara the Amorite Nikkal (Nin-gal), Amait, ete. (EM -

153 ff. ).

The earliest occurrences of the name Amurru (which is written
*mwr, ’mwr’ and ’mr’) are in the inscriptions of Ramses IT (1292-
1225) of the Nineteenth Dynasty. In the early period they called
the country along the Mediterranean Retenu, which may be related
in some way to the name Tidnu given the land by the early Baby-
lonians. The country east of the Orontes, extending to or beyond
the Euphrates, was called Naharin.

Retenu with its fenced cities was looked upon by the Egyptians
as well inhabited, and civilized, but its people they regarded as vile.
Thutmose III after making a peaceful tour of inspection through
Upper Retenu had a long series of reliefs made, representing the
fauna and flora of what he called ‘‘God’s land.’’ The inscriptions
mention commerce and booty or tribute as coming from Retenu in
the shape of gold, silver, lead, copper, chariots wrought with gold,
malachite, feldspar, precious stones, colors, incense, myrrh, cedar,

142 THE EMPIRE OF THE AMORITES.

ivory and other woods, cattle, etc. The ancient records of Hgypt
certainly attest the great wealth of this land.

The references to cities of Amurru are found in the inscriptions
of the second millennium. How many of these cities existed in
the third and fourth millennium B. C. cannot be determined.
There are reasons for believing that one at least figured quite
prominently in the earliest period of Egyptian history. The ref-
erence made above to Byblos in connection with the Pyramid texts
(ca. 3000 B. C.), or the recognition that city received as early as
2000 B. C. in having her Ba‘alath venerated in Egypt (Miller EM
154), would alone be suggestive of its importance as a great city,
and probably also a very ancient one. Shechem, it should also be
added, is mentioned in connection with an Egyptian campaign in
the Twelfth Dynasty.

The unwarlike attitude of the Egyptians, prior to the aggression
of the Semites, is responsible for the few references to the Amorite
land in the early period. Few and brief as they are, they furnish
us with most valuable glimpses of the civilization that existed in
that land, which we have reasons for believing had a great anti-
quity. The fuller references occur in the later period; but even
these enable us to picture the life and activity that must have
pulsated in this region in the earlier millenniums.

Snefru of the Third Dynasty, at the beginning of the third millen-
nium B. C., mentions bringing forty ships filled with cedar wood
from Lebanon. This is the earliest naval expedition on the open
sea that is known (BAR I, 146).

Sabure (Fifth Dynasty) about 2748-2731° dispatched a fleet
against the Phoenician coast. A relief discovered at Abushir

*These have been collected and discussed in the well known work by
Miller, Asien und Europa. Cf. also Burchardt, Altkanaandischen Fremd-
worte, and Paton, Hgyptian Records of Travel in Western Asia.

° The writer is not entitled to independent judgment as regards Egyp-
tian chronology. The dates used are taken from Breasted’s History of
Egypt, which is in accord with the Berlin school. These are much shorter
than those of Petrie and other Egyptologists who on account of certain
evidences, some of which were known and believed by the Egyptians
themselves, hold that the beginnings of Egyptian civilization were much
earlier.

XIV. EGYPT AND AMURRU. 1438

shows four of his ships filled with Semitic prisoners from the
Phoenician coast cities. This is the earliest known representation
of sea-going ships, and the earliest picture of Amorites who are
clearly distinguishable from the Egyptian sailors."

Uni, of the Sixth Dynasty, about two centuries later, in the
reign of Pepi I (2590-2570 B. C.), had been sent five times against
the ‘‘sand-dwellers’’? of Southern Palestine. In a sixth expedi-
tion he crossed over in troop ships to the back of the height of the
ridge on the north of the ‘‘sand-dwellers.’’ When his army
reached the highway, he smote all the revolters. This is the first
known Egyptian invasion of Palestine. (BAR I, 311 ff.)

The tale of Sinuhe, the Egyptian, which relates his adventures
in the time of Sesostris I (1980-1935 B. C.), throws most valuable
light upon Palestine in the twentieth century. This nobleman of
high rank had accompanied the young coregent Sesostris on a suc-
cessful campaign against the Libyans, when the news of the death
of the aged king Amenemhet I reached the camp. Without any
announcement, Sesostris hurried secretly back to the capital, but
Sinuhe, who accidentally overheard the message, apparently for
political reasons, fled eastward across the Delta into the desert.
On arriving at the frontier fortress he eluded the watches on the
wall. After wandering many days in the wilderness, and suf-
fering greatly from thirst, he was finally succored by an Amorite
who had been in Hgypt and who recognized him. He took him to
his people. Later he was sent from one land to another until
he came to Byblos. He finally reached Qedem where he spent a
year and a half. Then Ammi-enshi, the sheik of Upper Tenu (i. e.
Retenu), brought him forth, saying: ‘‘Happy art thou with me;
thou hearest the speech of Egypt,’’ for Sinuhe was known to the
Kigyptians who were with him.

He entered the service of the Amorite chieftain, became the tutor
of his children, married his eldest daughter, and was allowed to
select from the choicest of his lands. The goodly land named Yaa
yielded figs and vines. ‘‘More plentiful than water was its wine,
copious was its honey, plenteous its oil. All fruits were upon its
trees. Barley was there and spelt; without end all cattle.’”’ He

* Burchardt, Grabdenkmal des Konigs Sahure, Vol. II.

144 THE EMPIRE OF THE AMORITES.

was appointed sheik of the tribe. His children became the mighty
men of his tribe. His hospitality and his consideration for cara-
vans were such that he boasted of them. In his old age longing to
see his native land, and be embalmed after death, he sent a messen-
ger with a petition praying the Pharaoh to forgive him and allow
him to return. On receiving a gracious rescript, he handed over
his property to his children and set out for Egypt, where he was
reinstated in high favor.

This romance which doubtless gives a true picture of life in
Retenu, 1. e., northern Amurru, shows what a fertile, prosperous
and delightful land it was to live in.

In the time of Sesostris III (1887-1849 B. C.) of the Twelfth
Dynasty, Sebek-khu, his commandant, on a marauding expedition,
pillaged a place or district called Sekmen in Retenu. This is the
first Egyptian invasion of northern Amurru of which there is a
record. It may have been prompted by the aggressive attitude of
the Amorites, to which power Egypt a little later succumbed (BAR
I 680 f.).

A very important mural painting was found in a tomb of a gov-
ernor of Sesostris II], named Khnum-hotep, which throws consid-
erable light upon the land of Amurru in this era. It depicts the
visit of thirty-seven men, women and children, who are Semitic
Asiatics, called ’Amu. Generally the Egyptians despised the ’Amu,
which is the usual designation for the dwellers of Palestine. The
’Amu are headed by the chief of the highlands, Abesha, who is
depicted presenting a fine wild goat.. A kilted attendant leads an
antelope. The people are all richly dressed; the women besides
wearing sandals are depicted with socks. One man is playing
upon a lyre. Their possessions are tied to the backs of asses.
The scene presents a picture of a highly civilized people, the equiv-
alent it would seem of that which Egypt possessed, at least from
their appearance. The inscription reads: ‘‘The arrival, bringing
eye paint, which thirty-seven Asiatics (?Amu) bring to him. Their
leader is Sheik of the hill-country, Abesha’’ (BAR I, p. ses This
name is the same as the Hebrew Abshai.

Ahmose I (1580-1557 B. C.), in recording the siege of the city
Hatwaret (Avaris) and its capture, after which he pursued the
Hyksos into Asia to the city Sharuhen (Josh. 19: 6), furnishes us

XIV. EGYPT AND AMURRU. 145

with the first glimpse of what took place following the Asiatic rule
of the Hyksos, concerning which unfortunately there is such a pau-
city of data. According to Manetho the Hyksos made their last
stand at Avaris before being driven out of Egypt. Sharuhen fell
after a siege of six years. It is thought, according to a record of
Ahmose-Pen-Nekhbet, that Ahmose I then pushed northward into
Syria, and invaded Zahi (BAR II, 1 ff.).

Thutmose I, about 1530 B. C., invaded Naharin as far as the
Kuphrates, slaughtering his foe, and taking numberless prisoners.
On the west bank of the Euphrates he set up his boundary tablet,
which fact is ascertained from the inscription of his son Thutmose
EEE BAH Tl, SE*.).

Thutmose II, about 1490 B. C., conducted a campaign in ‘‘Retenu
the Upper,’’ as far probably as Niy on the Euphrates (BAR II
125

Following a period of inactivity on the part of Egypt, the king
of Kadesh succeeded in stirring up all the allied kingdoms of Zahi,
including Mitanni east of the Euphrates. Thutmose III (1479-
1447 B. C.) at the head of his army moved upon the strong fortress
at Megiddo in the plain of Esdraelon which guarded the road
between the Lebanons. Here the coalition was defeated, after
which Thutmose marched northward and captured the cities
Yenoam, Nuges and Herenkern, which commanded the thorough-
fare between the Lebanons. These cities he dedicated to Amon.

The record of the spoil taken at Megiddo by Thutmose ITI throws
interesting light upon the wealth of that district. He records hav-
ing received 2,041 mares, 191 foals, 6 stallions, 924 chariots, 200
suits of armor, 502 bows, 1,929 large cattle, 2,000 small cattle, and
20,500 white small cattle, perhaps goats. Although the people
living in the vicinity of Megiddo from whom this loot was taken
can scarcely be classed as nomads, they must have possessed great
wealth in herds and flocks.

On his second campaign through Palestine and southern Syria,
he received submissive kings and gathered tribute. Even Assyria
sent gifts. The reliefs of his third campaign, as mentioned above,
depict the flora and fauna of Syria, which he brought back. Annals
for his fourth campaign are wanting. On his fifth, he moved
against the northern coastal cities. He captured Arvad, seized

>

146 THE EMPIRE OF THE AMORITES.

some Phoenician ships, and returned by water. Having gained
the south country and the coast on his sixth expedition, he landed
his army at Simyra by the mouth of the Eleutheros, and marched
upon Kadesh. This fortified city in the north end of the valley
lay on the west side of the Orontes, and was surrounded by water.
After a siege of several months this formidable city was captured.
The balance of this season and his seventh campaign he spent in
chastizing Arvad and Simyra again, and engaged from the coast
towns a liberal supply of provisions for the campaigns he expected
to conduct in Naharin, the district beyond Kadesh.

On his eighth campaign, two years later, he captured Qatna and
Senzar. Aleppo must also have fallen, for he pushed into Naharin
to the ‘‘Height of Man,’’ where he fought a great battle. Many
towns of Naharin were captured and laid waste. He then turned
towards Carchemish, where he fought his foe, perhaps the king of
Mitanni; after which he crossed the Euphrates into that land, and
set up his boundary tablet. On his return to the west shore of the
river he found the tablet of his father, Thutmose I, alongside of
which he placed his own. The capture of the city of Niy, a little
to the south on the Euphrates, completed his work, after which
the princes of Naharin brought tribute to his camp. Babylon, as
well as the Hittites, also sent gifts at this time. Following his
achievements of the ten years, he erected at Karnak two enormous
obelisks which he inscribed ‘‘ Thutmose who crossed the great bend
of Naharin (Euphrates) with might and with victory at the head :
of his army.’’ One of the pair now stands in Constantinople, while
the other has disappeared.

The following year found Thutmose III again in Zahi, putting
down a revolt. Two years later at Araina, perhaps in the lower
Orontes valley, he defeated another coalition formed by his Naharin
foe. Several years after this he again chastised South Lebanon;
at which time Cyprus, Arrapahitis and the Hittites paid tribute.
His seventh and last campaign was occasioned by Kadesh inciting
his allies of Naharin and especially the king of Tunip to revolt,
which resulted in the destruction of that city and the fabyjngetion
of the country (BAR II, 391 ff.).

The most important record bequeathed to us by Thutmose III
was inscribed on one of the pylons of Karnak, containing his

XIV. EGYPT AND AMURRU. 147

annals, in which long lists of peoples and Amorite towns are found.
The striking fact is that in spite of all the vicissitudes which this
land suffered through conquests and migrations, many of these
names were in use in late Biblical times, and remain unchanged at
the present time. This fact, considered in connection with the
knowledge that some cities are known in the early period, suggests
the idea of a much greater antiquity for the civilization than is
generally recognized.

Amenhotep IT (1448-1420 B. C.), the son of Thutmose ITI, reigned
but one year, when all Naharin and Mitanni revolted. Early in
May of the following year he fought at Shemesh-Edom against the
princes of Lebanon, whom he defeated. A little later, after a skir-
mish near the Orontes, he reached Niy, which city acclaimed him
its sovereign. He punished the city of Ikathi, and at Tikhsi he
captured seven princes of that district, whom he hanged on reach-
ing Egypt. As his father and grandfather had done, he set up a
memorial tablet somewhere in Naharin marking his northern
boundary. In the vicinity of Napata he set up a stele marking his
southern boundary. He drove before him in triumphal procession,
as he proceeded to Memphis, 550 nobles, 240 wives, golden vessels
to the weight of 1660 pounds, copper, nearly 100 my pounds, 210
horses and 300 chariots (BAR II, 780 ff.).

Thutmose IV (1420-1411 B. C. ) apparently maintained the
boundaries of the Asiatic empire established by his father. Men-
tion is made of Naharin, against which one campaign was con-
ducted. He refers to cutting cedars in Retenu, and proclaimed
himself ‘‘conqueror of Syria.’’ His father had secured for him in
marriage the daughter of Artatama, king of Mitanni, in order to
strengthen his alliance with that country. She was named Mute-
muya in Egypt; and became the mother of the successor to the
throne (BAR II, 820 f.).

Amenhotep III (1411-1375 B. C.) was the last of the great
emperors. He married an untitled woman named Tiy, who occu-
pied a position of great influence during the reign. Circumstances
were such that he was not obliged to carry on warfare with
Amurru, for he had little occasion for anxiety from his subjects.
He enjoyed unchallenged supremacy throughout Syria, Babylonia,
Assyria, Mitanni, and Alashia, with whose rulers he maintained

148 THE EMPIRE OF THE AMORITES.

the friendliest of relations. We learn this, not from his monu-
mental records, which throw little or no light upon the situation,
but from the so-called Amarna Letters which contain official corre-
spondence between this ruler and his successor, on the one hand,
and on the other the rulers of the nations referred to. It was only
in the latter days of his long reign that trouble appeared in Syria.
Hittites from Cappadocia invaded Mitanni, and the provinces of
Egypt on the lower Orontes, and began the absorption of Syria.
Vassal Amorite princes were in the conspiracy, and Ubi, the region
of Damascus, was threatened. The Hittites and the Habiri, their
allies, mercenaries or subjects, began to invade the land.

During the reign of Amenhotep IV (1375-1358 B. C.), the heret-
ical king who assumed the name of Ihnaton, the dissolution of the
Asiatic empire took place, and it was finally absorbed by the
Hittites. On his accession Dushratta of Mitanni and Burra-Buri-
ash of Babylon sent greetings and sought friendly relations with
the Pharaoh. Seplel (written Shubbiluliuma in cuneiform), king
of the Hittites, did the same and sent gifts, but apparently Amen-
hotep had little desire of maintaining the old relations with Seplel,
for the Hittites had already begun to encroach upon his land.
With the assistance of the unfaithful vassal Abdi-Ashirta and his
son Aziru, who headed an Amorite kingdom on the upper Orontes,
and Itakama who had taken Kadesh, the Hittites, with the aid of
the Habiri, steadily advanced southward. The faithful vassals
of the Pharaoh one after another succumbed until the entire land
was lost to Egypt (see also Chapter XII). Besides the Amarna
letters, a single Hgyptian monument of this reign gives instruc-
tions regarding the disposition of Asiatics whose towns had been
plundered and destroyed, and who had come to settle in Egypt
(BAR III, 10 f.).

Seti I (1313-1292), after the lapse of half a century, records his
chastisement of the Bedouin in southern Palestine, who were mak-
ing common cause against the Palestinians. After this he cap-
tured towns in the plain of Esdraelon, and erected a victory tablet
in the Hauran; at which time the princes of the district came to
him and offered their allegiance. Two years later he is found
storming a walled city in Galilee called Kadesh, which had been
founded by the Amorites Abdi-Ashirta and Aziru; and later he

XIV. EGYPT AND AMURRU. 149

pushed northward against Merasar (Mursili), son of Seplel, king
of the Hittites, whom he met in the Orontes valley. It does not
seem that any important decision was gained, except that the move-
ment of Hittites southward was checked. Later he made a treaty
of peace with Metella (Mutallu), who had succeeded his father
Merasar (BAR III, 82 ff.). A few miles south of Tell Ashtarah
in Bashan a stele has been found in which Seti I is represented
offering a libation to Amon.

Ramses II (1292-1225 B. C.), about twenty years after the
attempt of Seti I to wrest the land from the Hittites, made his first
move against Metella. This occurred in his fourth year, when he
seized Kadesh on the Orontes. He left evidence of his activity
near Beirut in the shape of a stele cut into the rocks overlooking
the Nahr-el-Kelb (Dog River). Metella by the aid of the kings
of Naharin, Arvad, Carchemish, Kode, Kadesh, Nuges, Ekereth,
and Aleppo, besides drawing upon his allies in Asia Minor, amassed
a great army. The battle of Kadesh which followed is the first
in history whose strategy can be studied. The Hittite king by clev-
erly masking his manoeuvres, flanked Ramses, who was taken
unawares. The battle was undecisive, yet Ramses returned to
Egypt and celebrated the event as a triumph. Several years of
eampaigns followed. Naharin was conquered as far as Tunip.
After about fifteen campaigns the Hittite king died, and Ramses
made peace and a treaty of alliance with Hetasar (Hattusil), his
successor, which continued effective throughout his long reign
(BAR UL, 816 fi).

Merneptah (1225-1215 B. C.) was advanced in years when he came
to the throne. Not long after his ascension he discovered that the
northern Mediterranean peoples, called by the Egyptians, ‘‘peoples
of the sea,’? among whom were the Theku and Peleset (Philis-
tines), together with allied peoples, were making incursions from
the north and especially Asia Minor; and were plundering his ter-
ritory in coalition with the Libyans, who were encroaching upon
Egypt. This movement resulted in the decline of the Hittite
power in the north, with whom the Egyptians had no further con-
flict.

In a poetic encomium celebrating his victory over the Libyans,
without mentioning his allies from the north Merneptah makes

150 THE EMPIRE OF THE AMORITES.

reference in the last section to Israel. It reads: ‘‘The kings are
overthrown, saying Salam! Not one holds up his head among the
Nine Bows. Wasted is Tehenu, Heta is pacified; plundered is
Pekanan (the Canaan) with every evil; carried off is Askalon;
seized upon is Gezer; Yenoam is made a thing not existing; Israel
is desolated, his seed is not; Palestine has become a widow for
Egypt; all lands are united, they are pacified; every one that is
turbulent is bound by King Merneptah, giving life like Re, every
day.””

Tn a letter from a frontier official, mention is made of Edomite
Bedouin being allowed to live near Pithom (cf. Gen. 47: 1-12), in
order to pasture their cattle (BAR III, 623 ff.).

Ramses III (1198-1167 B. C.) records in relief, scenes of his inva-
sion of Northern Syria and Asia Minor. It shows him storming
five strong cities, one of which is called ‘‘the city of Amor,”’
another presumably is Kadesh surrounded by water (BAR IV,
59 ff.).

Sheshonk (945-924 B. C.) is the first Pharaoh mentioned by name
in the Old Testament, who in the fifth year of Rehoboam invaded
Palestine (1 Kgs. 14: 25). Ona large relief found at Karnak he
gave a list of between fifty and sixty names of towns in Israel and
about one hundred in Judah. Of the total number only about
seventy-five are preserved, of which seventeen can be identified.
Béth ‘Anath in Galilee is the most northern city recognized; and
Arad in Judah the most southern (BAR IV, 709 ff.).

A study of the Egyptian monuments of the early period tends
to show that considerable influence was exerted from Amurru,
where in important centers a civilization of a high order existed
already in an early age. It is recognized that emigrants poured
also into Babylonia and Assyria. Politically Amurru is not known
to have come into contact with Egypt in the early period; never-
theless, it is not impossible, as stated in a previous chapter, that
one or more of the dark periods in Egyptian history are to be
explained as being due to encroachments of the Amorites, as we
have definite proof, occurred in the history of early Babylonia.

In the period prior to the Hyksos rule, that is, before 1700 B. C.,
there is no evidence from the Egyptian monuments to show that

XIV.. EGYPT AND AMURRU. 151

there was any kind of a political union of the different principali-
ties of Amurru. This is due to the extreme paucity of references.
to the country on the monuments. The Hyksos movement unques-
tionably must have represented united activity on the part of
Amorite kingdoms. Following their expulsion, there can be no
doubt but that the Amorite cities of the Mediterranean region were
leagued together in resisting the invasion and conquest of the land
by Thutmose III.

A study of the Egyptian monuments of the second millennium,
without any knowledge from other sources, reveals a stability and
permanency of civilization in Amurru that suggests a very long
period of development. The stubborn resistance offered the Egyp-
tian hosts by the walled cities, the way their strength from time to
time was revived, the amount and character of the booty taken, the
enormous tribute received by Egypt, the knowledge we have of the
commerce carried on, besides many other considerations, tend to
confirm the idea that the civilization of Amurru had a great anti-
quity; and that back of the earliest traces of it, there was a chain
or development which covered many centuries.

XV
AMORITES IN THE OLD TESTAMENT

The Amorites are regarded in the Old Testament as pre-Israelite
inhabitants of Palestine; where we get the correct impression that
their history largely belonged to the past. The term Amorite is
used as having an ethnic signification, but it was also used fre-
quently in a collective or geographic sense. The Canaanites lived
along the coast, and the Amorites in the hills or high ground (Josh.
5: 1 ete.); but the terms are frequently used synonymously (Gen.
18: 22 ete.). In some instances all the inhabitants of the land, the
Hittites, Jebusites, Hivites, ete., are designated as Amorites (Josh.
7: 7), even the Philistines (1 Sam. 7: 14); and in other instances
the Amorites are listed among the different peoples of the country
(Josh. 24: 11).

The earliest reference in the Old Testament to the Amorites is
found in the narrative of the Elamitic campaign to Palestine and
the country to the south of it. This took place during the short
period when Elam was dominant in Babylonia, in the latter part
of the third millennium B. C. Chedorlaomer (Kudur-Lagamar),
king of Hlam, was accompanied by Arioch, king of Ellasar (Larsa),
Amraphel (Hammurabi) king of Shinar (Babylon), and Tidal
king of Goyyim (perhaps Guti), (Gen. 14:1). These kings made
war with Bera, king of Sodom, Birsha, king of Gomorrah, Shinab
king of Admah, Shemeber king of Zeboiim, and the king of Bela
(the same is Zoar). All these joined together in the vale of Sid-

dim (the same is the Salt Sea). Chedorlaomer and the kings >

that were with him smote the Rephaim in Ashteroth-Karnaim
(probably Tell ‘Ashtara in Bashan), the Zuzim in Ham, the Emim
in Shaveh-kiriathaim, and the Horites in Mount Seir, unto El-pa-
ran, which is by the Wilderness. These kings returned and came
to Em-mishpat (the same is Kadesh) and smote all the country of
the Amalekites and also the Amorites that dwelt in Hazazon-tamar.
The latter place is identified in 2 Chron. 20: 2 with En-gedi, which
(152)

= ee ee el ee lien

a

XV. AMORITES IN THE OLD TESTAMENT. 153

was situated in the high cliffs at the mouth of the gorge of Wady
_ Ghor running into the Dead Sea at about the middle of the west
bank. Some scholars, however, identify it with Thamara between
Elath and Hebron. Kadesh has been identified about fifty miles
south of Beer-sheba. When the Israelites came to Kadesh-barnea
it is said that they had reached unto the hill country of the Amo-
rites (Deut. 1: 19, 20). Sihon’s Amorite kingdom is said to have
reached unto the Gulf of Akabah (see below). This invasion, it
would seem, passed through the country on the east side of the
Jordan and the Dead Sea, and extended southward. If the identi-
fication of Humurtu with Gomorrah should prove correct, the
Babylonian army of Dungi at an earlier time had also visited this
region. Certainly as stated above, the title ‘‘king of the four
quarters,’’ which he acquired, points to activity in Amurru.

The statement that Abram dwelt by the oaks of Mamre, the Amo-
rite, brother of Eshcol and Aner (Gen. 14: 13), refers to Amorites
living near Hebron in southern Palestine (Numb. 13: 23 b).

‘¢The land of the Moriah’’ whither Abraham was commanded to
take Isaac and offer him for a burnt offering upon one of the moun-
tains, seems to refer to the Lebanon district. In his journey, ‘‘on
the third day he lifted up his eyes and saw the place afar off.’’
The Peshitto version reads ‘‘the land of the Amorites’’ instead
of ‘‘the land of the Moriah.’’ The Septuagint translator not
understanding the text, used the words ‘‘the highland.’’ The
writer of 2 Chron. 3: 1, who refers to ‘‘the mountain of the
Moriah,’’ apparently having the temple hill of Jerusalem in mind,
seems to have based his statement upon this passage after the name
had been corrupted. The Septuagint version here reads it cor-
rectly ‘‘of the Amorites.’’ The Hebrew in both instances has the
article, ‘‘the Moriah.’’ If the shortened form Moriah had actu-
ally been used as well as Amoriah, it would be an interesting
parallel to the name in cuneiform, where the initial letter also in
some instances has disappeared (see Chapter VII).

Isaac before dying informs Joseph that he had given him
Shechem which he had taken from the Amorites: ‘‘I have given to
thee Shechem above thy brethren, which I took out of the hand
of the Amorite with my sword and bow’’ (Gen. 48: 22). This tra-
dition apparently alludes to the capture of that city by his sons.

154 THE EMPIRE OF THE AMORITES.

There is a Jewish legend which tells of an attack made by seven
Amorite kings upon Jacob at Shechem, and of his victory over them
(Jubilees 34, 1 to 9).

The Amorites in the time of Moses continued to be dominant on
the east side of the Jordan and the Dead Sea. The river Arnon
flowing into the Dead Sea ‘‘was the border of Moab between Moab
and the Amorite’’ (Numb. 21: 13). Sihon king of the Amorites
refused to let Israel pass through his border; and Israel smote
him and took his land, from Arnon to Jabbok, even unto the chil-
dren of Ammon. Israel dwelt in all the cities, in Heshbon the city
of Sihon, and all the towns thereof (Numb. 21: 21-26). Jazer,
another city of the Amorites in this district, is also mentioned by
name as captured (v. 32). And Israel ‘‘turned and went up by
way of Bashan, where Og king of Bashan came out against them.’’
He also was defeated, and Israel possessed his land (vv. 33-35).
Although Og, king of Bashan, is called a king of the Amorites, it
is said he ‘‘remained of the remnant of the Rephaim,’’ a great
race of that district.

The territory of these ‘‘two Amorite kings’’ is said to have
extended from Aroer on the edge of the valley of Arnon even unto
Mount Sion (also called Sirion and Senir, i. e. Hermon), and all
the Arabah unto the sea of the Arabah (which is the Gulf of Aka-
bah) (Deut. 3: 8 ff. and 4: 47-49). The two kingdoms therefore
included Bashan, Gilead, Moab, and Edom to the Gulf of Akabah,
a region of no small extent.

After the Amorites beyond the Jordan had been conquered,
Israel crossed the Jordan and came to Jericho, fought and defeated
the men of Jericho, the Amorites, Perizzites, Canaanites, Hittites,
Girgashites, Hivites and Jebusites (Josh. 24: 8-11, 15 and 18).

On the west of the Jordan, Joshua and the inhabitants of Gibeon,
who are said later in the time of David to be of the remnant of the
Amorites (2 Sam. 21: 2), fought and defeated five Amorite kings,
namely Adoni-zedek of Jerusalem, Hoham of Hebron, Piram of
Jarmuth, Japhia of Lachish, and Debir of Eglon (Josh. 10: 3 ff.).
The older population of Judah being called Amorite throws light
on the passage in Ezekiel concerning Jerusalem: ‘‘the Amorite
was thy father and thy mother was a Hittite’’ (Hzek. 16: 3).

XV. AMORITES IN THE OLD TESTAMENT. piesa

The Amorites also dwelt in Heres, Aijalon and in Shaalbim, and
tried to force the children of Dan into the hill country, but the
latter prevailed and made them tributary (Judg. 1: 34 ff.).

While we have knowledge of a number of petty principalities of
the Amorites on the west side of the Jordan there is no evidence
of a kingdom or kingdoms such as those of Og and Sihon on the
east side. When excavations are conducted in this region there
may be discovered remains of a much earlier Amorite civilization
than has yet been found in Western Palestine.

Unfortunately only a few names borne by Amorites are men-
tioned in the Old Testament. Some of these like Adoni-zedek,
Japhia, Debir can be said to be Semitic, while others remain unde-
termined. The same can be said of the five kings mentioned in the
Elamitic campaign (see Chapter II).

XVI
ASSYRIA AND AMURRU

The country of Assyria, owing to its proximity to Amurru, seems
to have been extensively influenced by that land. This follows
from a study of the religion and nomenclature of the Assyrian
inscriptions both early and late. Not only was the country settled
by Amorites, but they kept pouring into it in various periods, as
they did into Babylonia, and Egypt.

In spite of the fact that the excavations conducted in Assyria
have not been inconsiderable, little has been found that throws light
on the beginnings of the land’s history. The inscriptions of Shal-
maneser I and Hsarhaddon furnish us with references to an early
king named Ushpia (also written Aushpia), the traditional builder
of E-harsag-kurkurra, the temple of Ashur; and to Kikia, who is
regarded as the traditional builder of the wall of Ashur (Chron. I
122, 140). Also in a late chronicle we learn that Ilu-shuma, king
of Assyria, marched against Su-abu, who is considered to be Sumu-
abum, the founder of the First Dynasty of Babylon (ibid. I p. 129).
The first contemporaneous record bearing upon Assyria from
Babylonian sources is a military despatch of Hammurabi, which
refers to his troops and the country of Assyria (LIA III p. 14),
which in this period was subject to Babylon.

The earliest known references to Assyria in the inscriptions
belonging to such a comparatively late period, the question as to
the origin of its civilization has frequently been touched upon.
Heretofore it has been customary, with the Biblical tradition of
Nimrod, to regard it as having been an offshoot from Babylonia,
largely because of the script and language and certain cultural
elements.1. The early inhabitants of the country, whether Semitic
or non-Semitic, did make use of what we call the Semitic Babylo-
nian language, and the Sumero-Akkadian system of writing.

*See Rogers History of Babylonia and Assyria (II 133 ff.).
(156)

XVI. ASSYRIA AND AMURRU. 157

Moreover the Sumerian temple names, the many Sumerian terms
used for religious rites, etc., point unmistakably to Sumerian infiu-
ence at some previous time; but whether this was by direct contact
with the Sumerians or indirectly by contact with the Semites who
lived in Eastern Amurru, who had been influenced by the Sume-
rians, or from both sources, cannot be determined.

The excavations conducted by the Deutsche Orient-Gesellschaft
at Kalah-Shergat, the site of ancient Ashur, on the Tigris, yielded
besides inscriptions, the earliest known antiquities of that land.
In the lowest stratum, which was separated by charred debris
from the one above, there were found several pieces of rude sculp-
ture which are suggestive of the work of the Sumerians, familiar to
us from the excavations in Southern Babylonia. The inlaying of
the eyes with shell, the Sumerian physiognomy, the shorter head,
and the treatment of the garments, make it reasonable to think that
prior to the period when the foundations of the temple of Ishtar
at Ashur were laid, the people were under the influences of the
Sumerian civilization, which prevailed in Babylonia at the same
time (see King HB 137 f.). Whether the Assyrians were under
the influence of the Sumerian craftsmen in their original home,
before they settled Assyria, is another question that cannot be
determined at present.

In Amurru 138 ff., the writer proposed, after a consideration of
the use of certain West Semitic deities in the early names of
temples and individuals, that the early Assyrian culture, with
which we are familiar, arose, or was extensively influenced by
migration from the West. It is interesting to note that recent
publications of Johns and King accord with this idea.2 This is
also accepted by Luckenbill; who, however, holds that the earliest
Semites of Assyria were borne in on what he calls the first of the
successive migrations from the desert of Arabia into the Euphrates
Valley, which movement of Semites brought Sargon and Naram-
Sin (ca. 2500 B. C.) into Babylonia, when supremacy was for the
first time gained by them (see AJSL 28, p. 154). With this view
the writer feels constrained to differ in every detail, as is evident
from the results presented in this work.

* Johns Ancient Assyria p. 10; King HB p. 137.

158 THE EMPIRE OF THE AMORITES.

It has been suggested that the two earliest known traditional
rulers, Ushpia and Kikia, were Hittite-Mitannian (cf. Ungnad BA
VI5p.13). If this is correct, no other influence from this quarter
has been pointed out. It is not impossible that the Mitanni people
had already pushed into Aram. It would seem that these kings
lived prior to the time of the Ur Dynasty, for the rulers of Ur, who
bore the title ‘‘king of the four quarters,’’ would hardly have per-
mitted an encroachment upon the territory north of Akkad. Since
Ka/(?)-sha-Ashir and Shalim-ahum preceded Ilu-shuma (K7'A 60),
who is thought to have been a contemporary of Sumu-abu, founder
of the Amorite First Dynasty of Babylon, the beginning of their
reigns would be near the time the Amorites established themselves
on the thrones of Nisin and Larsa.* Probably there was at least a
fresh ingress of Amorites at this time.

If the Semites who lived in Assyria prior to this period were
Babylonians, they have left no traces of their culture which can be
said to be peculiarly their own, except the use of the language and
script. In an inscription found at Ashur, Ashir-nirari (about 1800
B. C.) calls himself ‘‘the builder of the temple of ¢?Hn-lil-labira.’’
Some may incline to cite this as an example of influence from
Babylonia. As stated below in Chapter XVII, En-lil ‘‘lord of
the storm’’ is very probably another designation of the Amorite
storm-deity. This is confirmed by the reference of Tiglath-pileser
I to this very temple in Ashur, in which he mentions it as ‘‘the
temple of the god Amurru, the temple of the elder Bél, the divine
house’’ (King Annals p. 87). The passage becomes intelligible
if we understand it to mean that Amurru is the elder bél m4téti, or
Enlil.

The god Ashir or Ashur is not known to have been worshipped
in early Babylonia. In Cappadocia, at a time probably contem-
poraneous with the Ur dynasty, hence earlier than the earliest
Semitic inscriptions at present known from Ashur, the deity was
very prominently worshipped. Besides, as referred to (see Chap-
ter XIII), the two regions had certain customs in common; and we

* Esarhaddon refers to a king Ellil-bani, son of Adasi, who was made
a ruler by Ura-imitti, but he seems to have been the ruler by that name
of the Nisin dynasty, in other words a Babylonian.

XVI. ASSYRIA AND AMURRU. 159

have reason for believing that either the one locality influenced
the other, or there was an intermediate civilization, of which we
have at present no trace, that influenced both. As mentioned also,
the names of the early rulers of Assyria, being constituted with
the Amorite gods Ashur, Adad, Dagan, and Shamshi, show that
they were probably Amorite. Besides, the earliest temple of
which we have knowledge was erected to Adad and Anu, who were
also Amorite gods (see Chapter XVII).

The earliest known Assyrian king who records that he came into
contact with the land Amurru was Shamshi-Adad III, who ruled
about 1600 B. C. He calls himself Sar kis3ati, which is usually
translated ‘‘king of the universe,’’ and informs us that he devoted
his energies to the region between the Tigris and the Euphrates
(ATA 2 Obv. 5-9). Further, he states that he set up a memorial
stele in the country of La-ab-a-an (Lebanon), on the shore of ‘‘the
great sea’’ (the Mediterranean) (KTA 2, IV: 13 ff.). He does
not mention having had any conflict in this part of the land, which
would indicate that he probably ruled prior to the time the Hyksos
were driven out of Egypt, after which Western Amurru became
tributary to that land.

Ashur-uballit, who lived about 1400 B. ©., is credited by a
descendent with having conquered the lands of Shubari, Musri,
ete. (KTA 3 Obv. 33 and 4 Obv. 25). His grandson Arik-dén-ilu
conquered the bordering lands to the west and north-west of
Assyria, including the Aramaeans (Ablami), and Sutti peoples
(KATA 31: 21). Adad-nirari II, his son, about 1300 B. C., who
called himself ‘‘king of the universe,’’ conquered many strong-
holds along the Euphrates, including Harran as far as Carchemish
(ATA 5 Oby. 13). Shalmaneser I also makes the same claim (K7'A
13 Rev. II: 4). Tukulti-Inurta, about 1260 B. C., claimed to be
‘‘king of the universe, king of the four quarters’? (K7'A 17 Obv.
1-2), the latter title being more comprehensive than the former.‘

The four quarters, as is well known, embraced Akkad on the
south, Shubartu on the north, Elam on the east, and Amurru on
the west; but the latter country could only have been conquered
in part, for it was during this time that the Egyptians and the

*For translations of these texts, see Luckenbill AJSL 28, 167 ff.

160 THE EMPIRE OF THE AMORITES.

Hittites were contesting for the supremacy of the land along the
Mediterranean; and in fact no mention is made of Assyria being
involved in any of the references to the control of this territory
in the Egyptian inscriptions (see Chapter XIV). From a little
later on, in the time of Tiglath-pileser I, about 1100 B. C., refer-
ences to this part of Amurru are found in that ruler’s inscriptions.

Amurru, with Mitanni already occupying Aram, it would seem,
in the sixteenth century was dominated completely by neighboring
powers. The Hittites had encroached upon the land from the north
and the north-east; Egypt, after driving back the Hyksos, con-
trolled the western part of the country along the Mediterranean
to the Euphrates, even crossing it; and Assyria had continued to
hold by raids or conquests at least part of the eastern region.
While the Egyptians and the Hittites came into conflict over the
western lands, Egypt and Assyria do not seem to have experienced
any difficulties with each other; although Assyria, desiring to be
on friendly terms with Thutmose ITI, sent costly gifts, which were
interpreted by the Egyptians as representing tribute. The friend-
ship of Egypt also seems to have been greatly desired by both
Assyria and Babylonia in the time of Amenhotep III, as is shown
by the Amarna letters. Moreover, the Assyrian inscriptions of
the latter half of the second millennium show us that repeated con-
quests were necessary to maintain supremacy in the part of
Amurru which that nation tried to hold.

Shamshi-Adad, the earliest ruler mentioned above who claims to
have been solicitous for the welfare of the land between the Tigris
and the Euphrates, is doubtless the ruler bearing that name who
built the temple at Tirqa on the Kuphrates (see Chapter X). He
is the only early Assyrian king who claims to have done more than
conquer and subdue; and it must be admitted that it is an interest-
ing discovery to have found evidence of the constructive activity
of this Assyrian king in this region in the shape of the votive
tablet referred to in Chapter XI.

In the inscriptions of the following period we learn that Tiglath-
pileser I (about 1125-1100), who had extended greatly the terri-
tory of Assyria, sailed in ships of Arvad upon the Mediterranean;
which he called ‘‘the great sea of Amurru’’ (KB I 48: 8).
Although the title ‘‘king of the four quarters’’ included Amurru

XVI. ASSYRIA AND AMURRU. 161

(see above), Assyrian inscriptions prior to this time do not men-
tion the name Amurru. Ashir-bél-kala in his inscription mentions
the gods of Amurru (King AKA p. 153). Ashur-nasir-pal refers
to the great sea of Amurru, and to receiving tribute from the kings
on the shore of the sea from Tyre, Sidon, Byblos, Mahallata, Maisa,
Kaisa, Amurru, and Armada (KBI108: 85 and 86). Adad-nirari
IIT says he conquered Hatti, Amurru, Tyre, Sidon, Edom, Omri
(Israel) and Samaria (KB I 190: 11), showing that he did not
include Palestine in Amurru. Sargon informs us that he ruled the
wide land of Amurru, in which he included Hatti and Damascus
(X: 17, XIV: 22, 46; Annals 52). Sennacherib considers that
Amurru included the cities of Philistia and Phoenicia, as well as
Béth-Amon, Moab, and Edom (KB II 90). Ashurbanipal also
included Palestine in Amurru.® The references show that in the
Assyrian inscriptions of the first millennium the confines of
Amurru varied, and the name had an uncertain signification, the
same as in the Old Testament; moreover, the name is usually
found with the gentilic ending as in the Old Testament.

5 See Tofteen AJSLZ 1908 p. 31.

XVII |
THE DEITIES OF AMURRU

An exhaustive study of the religions of Amurru would embrace
not only all the ancient inscriptions that have been discovered in
the land, including the Old Testament, but all the light that can be
gathered from contemporaneous sources. It would include also
certain elements of belief that survive at present, which represent
the unconscious inheritance of previous millenniums; also sacred
sites, objects, rites and practices.

The purpose of the present effort being to establish the existence
of an antiquity for the Amorite civilization and to show its influ-
ence upon other nations, it must suffice to discuss briefly only such
details of the early history as the contemporaneous records offer ;
and instead of attempting to reconstruct the religion of the Amor-
ites, which at the present would be an impossibility, little more
can be done besides presenting the knowledge that we have of the
prominent deities that they worshipped. In such a review it is
necessary to bear in mind that many different nations or tribes
occupied this territory, some of which were non-Semitic. To what
extent these peoples’ religion influenced the Amorite, and whether
any of the deities we now consider as Semitic were foreign, cannot
be determined. Then it is known that different petty principali-
ties, as in Babylonia, had their own and distinct names for gods
who were worshipped in other districts under other names. The
fact that so many of the deities of the land were storm-gods, and
were identified with each other, would seem to confirm this. Even
Jahweh was regarded by the Hebrews as a storm-deity, a god of
the mountains. Certain groups of deities are mentioned in the
Aramaean inscriptions, as for example in the Panammu inscrip-
tion, Hadad, El, Resheph, Rekeb-el, and Shamash; it is nevertheless

1 §mall but valuable compends of the early religion of Canaan are Cook
The Religion of Ancient Palestine, and Paton The Early Religion of Israel.
(162)

XVII. THE DEITIES OF AMURRU. 163

impossible at the present time to attempt a reconstruction of a
pantheon or pantheons—in fact, it is possible to do little more than
discuss in some instances the attributes of the gods, and set forth
in a general way the facts that can be gathered concerning them.
But this knowledge coming from contemporaries who had adopted
the deities, or referred to them, very often shows such modifica-
tions of what is usually regarded as the original conceptions of the
deities, that its value appears to be only relative in arriving at per-
manent conclusions concerning the sex, nature and attributes of the
Amorite gods.

In not a few instances it has been ascertained that the character
of gods was changed after they had been transported to other
lands. These changes may have been due to various causes. The
deity of the mountains when brought into the plains would grad-
ually lose his mountainous character. A storm-god transported
to a rainless land would naturally have other attributes empha-
sized. If Ha is Amorite, as is claimed, and the ideogram En-ki,
‘‘lord of the earth,’’ is an indication of the nature of the god in
the country where he was indigenous, we can only conclude that
it was when brought to Eridu in southern Babylonia, a city that
had been built on land regained from the sea, that he became a god
of the springs and the deep.

Rivalry, prejudice, or contempt may have been responsible for
a deity’s being regarded quite differently in a foreign land from
the way he was regarded in the land where autochthonous. Urra
in Babylonia was looked upon as the god of pestilence, plague,
destruction, ete. Ne-Uru-Gal, Urra-Gal, or Urru, the Nergal of
Cutha, was the god of the underworld as well as of plague and
pestilence. If Cutha was a Babylonian city of the dead, we should
have a reason for this conception of the deity. He, as well as other
deities, who originally partook of the same nature as the god Uru
or Urru or Amurru, are gods of war like the storm-god Adad (see
below). A storm-deity is naturally a god of destruction, as well
as one who has considerable to do with vegetation. It would seem
reasonable to infer that the idea that this deity was a god of
plagues, pestilences, and death had developed in the land which
had from time to time suffered violence at the hands of the hordes
who worshipped him. Such a god of the invaders, perhaps ruth-

164 THE EMPIRE OF THE AMORITES.

less, was regarded as rasubbu, ‘‘the terrible.’’ Nergal, although
adopted in the Babylonian pantheon, may have continued to be
recognized as a god of the West. With this understanding it is
not difficult to comprehend how a god of the Amorites, who had
again and again invaded Babylonia, would be regarded as such a
deity. Doubtless the same conception arose in the West concern-
ing the Babylonian and Assyrian war gods, who had brought
calamity so often upon the people; but unfortunately we have no
way at present of determining this.

Another modification which the original character of certain
deities suffered was the change in sex, a question which Barton
and others have fully discussed. (See Semitic Origims pp. 120,
191 ff. ete.). When the goddess Ashirta was carried into Arabia,
she became the god Athtar; and the god Shamash became a god-
dess. In the Nippur Name Syllabary it would seem that Shamash
in the name Tu-li-id-“Samsi(-%1) (UMBS XI 1, 39) was also
regarded as feminine. Urta, the goddess of the Amorites in Baby-
lonia, became masculinized, although the name In-Urta stood for a
goddess as well as a god (see below). .

Some scholars see in this transformation of sex the idea of the
combination of the two principles, male and female. True, Venus
was credited with an androgynous character by certain ancient
writers of the late period, but the existence of a hermaphrodite
in the Semitic world is yet to be proved. 3

In the development of theological systems in the various Baby-
lonian centres we find many attempts at identifying one god with
another. Such a practice was perfectly natural in a land into
which foreign gods were constantly filtering. As a result the syl-
labaries of deities contain many syncretistic formations, such as
Uru-Mash, Shar-Maradda, Shar-Girru, Nannar-Gir-Gal, Amar-
Utug, ete. Such formations were known also in the West,
as Ashtar-Chemosh, Hadad-Rimmon, ‘Attar-‘Ate, Itur-Mer, Bir-
Dadda, Giri-Dadda, Jahweh-Sabaoth, Jahweh-Shalom, ete.

As is well known the generic designations or titles as Hl ‘‘god,’’
Ba‘al ‘“‘lord, owner,’’ with its corresponding feminine form
Ba‘ alat, were used in connection with deities of different localities.
It seems Malik or Melek, probably the same as Molech of the Old
Testament, was another such appellation. In only a few instances

XVII. THE DEITIES OF AMURRU. 165

can the names of the deities who are represented by such designa-
tions be surmised; to cite a single example, the Ba‘al of Harran
was the moon god Sin. In Egypt Ba‘al became the name of a
deity, as was Bél, another name for Marduk in the Neo-Babylonian
period. Adén ‘‘lord’’ is another such term. This element
appears frequently in Assyrian texts, as A-du-na-i-21, A-du-ni-
ba-‘-al, A-du-ni-ili-a, ete. Abu ‘‘father’’ is found in many Old
Testament names like Ab-rdm, Abi-hid, Abi-melech, Abi-shiia’‘, etc.,
where, as in other Semitic lands, it is used as a substitute for the
name of a deity. ‘Am written in cuneiform Amma, Hammu, etc.,
which some regard as a designation of ‘‘the father-uncle,’’ borne
by the husbands of a wife when polyandry was practiced, is also
used instead of a deity in personal names, cf. ‘Am-ram, ‘Ammi-el,
‘Ammi-hud, ete.?

In view of the fact that the name of ia diciiine or Uru is the
same as that of the land, and that Aloros ‘‘god Uru’’ stood at
the head of the Chaldean mythological list of antediluvian kings, it
would seem that the god Amurru or Uru was the head of the pan-
theon of Amurru. Nevertheless, because of our very limited
knowledge of the Amorite religion it seems best at this time to
consider the deities alphabetically.

Adad is one of the most prominent deities of the Western
Semites. He is known in the Old Testament as Hadad. The name
is found written in cuneiform: A-da-ad, Ad-du, Ad-di, A-ad-du,
_ A-da-di, A-da-da, Da-ad-da, Da-di, Ha-di, ete. Another name of
this deity, perhaps arisen as an epithet, is Ramman, also written
Ramimu, Rimmon, Pewpay (2 Kgs. 5:18), ete. (see Deimel Pantheon
Babylonicum, 48 f.).

Adad, together with Shamash, figures prominently in the Hittite
treaty, where both bear the title ‘‘lord of heaven.’’ In one of the
Amarna letters, Abimelech, king of Tyre, likens the Pharaoh to
Shamash and Adad. In the Aramaic inscription of King Pan-
ammu of northern Syria (eighth century), he is mentioned at
the head of a list of five gods; Hadad, El, Resheph, Rekeb-el, and
Shamash. In Assyria and Babylonia, to which lands they were
carried, Shamash and Adad were lords of divination. In Assyria

2 See Paton’s article on ‘Amm in Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics.

166 THE EMPIRE OF THE AMORITES.

a common name for the early rulers was Shamshi-Adad. The
name may mean ‘‘My sun is Adad,’’ but it also may mean ‘‘Sham-
ash is Adad,’’ a syncretistic formation, many examples of which
have been found in Amurru (see above). There are other deities
of the West lands, including some that are not Semitic, that have
been likened to Adad of Amurru, namely Dagan of Amurru, Teshub
of Su, Adgi of Suh, Tl-Hallapu, Du-We-ir.®

We are dependent for our knowledge of the nature of Adad
largely upon the inscriptions of Babylonia and Assyria, where he
was regarded as the weather-god, the god of the tempest, inunda-
tions, lightning, and thunder. Gods as well as men seemed to
stand in awe of him because of his power over the elements. He
was the lord of abundance at the same time that he was of want
and hunger, which resulted from his withholding the rain. His
destructive power made him an appropriate war-deity; and we
find Hammurabi speaking of him as ‘‘the mighty bull who gores
the enemy.’’ Doubtless, Adad is meant by the picture of the
powerful bull breaking down the fortress representing a deity in
an Egyptian scene. It should be added that Adad’s close associa-
tion with Shamash, especially because of the very common combi-
nation Shamshi-Adad in names, and other facts, show that
attributes of a solar-god were blended with those of a storm-deity
in Adad.

Adad, unlike several other West Semitic deities, although
brought into the Babylonian pantheon, was not identified with any
particular centre in Babylonia, at least as far as is known at pres-
ent. In Assyria his position was different, for one of the earliest
temples was erected to Anu and Adad. Later, Ashur supplanted
Anu, and the two prominent deities of the land became Ashur and
Adad.

_In the art of the seal cylinders, Adad is frequently seen resting
his foot upon a bull, or standing entirely upon the animal, which
he leads by a leash attached to a ring in its nose. In the same hand
he holds a thunderbolt; the other hand is usually held against the
breast. The many devotees of Adad (47M) among the Amorites

3 See OT 25, 16 and 17 etc., but especially in connection with the many
forms in which the god Amurru or Uru occur (Chapter VIT).

XVII. THE DEITIES OF AMURRU. 167

living in Babylonia, as is shown by the impressions of seal cylinders
in the time of the First Dynasty, is an indication as to how exten-
sive was the worship of the deity at this time.

- Adgi is a name of the storm-god Adad in the land of Suhi,
according to the list of gods CT 25,16: 19. It occurs in the name
Ad-gi-ilu of the Assyrian documents (ADD 17: 3), and in the name
Ad-gi-si-ri-za-bad-du of the Murashii texts (BE X 55: 1), which
is also written in the Aramaic endorsement on the tablet, TATVWAIN.
Tn the latter name the god seems to be syncretized with Siri, namely
Adgi-Siri. |

Amurru or Uru. It has been previously maintained by the
writer that the name of the West Semitic deity Amurru or Uru,
when brought into Babylonia by the Semites, was written differ-
ently in different centres. For example, at Babylon the name
appeared Amar-Utug, probably a syncretistic formation; at Cutha
it was written Ne-Uru-Gal, Urra-Gal, ete. On the ideographic and
phonetic writings of the name, see Chapter VII.

In studying the inscriptions of the seal impressions on tablets
dated in the time of the First Dynasty, one is struck with the num-
ber of individuals who acknowledged obeisance to Amurru (?Mar-
tu). What especially stands out in these seal inscriptions is the
writing “El-Amurru (4AN-Mar-tu). The two signs for deity have
been regarded as representing a Phoenician plural, and read elim
or elénim; or it has been read “An-Mar-tu and regarded as a com-
bination of Anu and Martu.t There can be little doubt but that
the reading is, as stated above, El-Amurru, or ’El-Uru (see Amurru
1909, p. 158). This name appears frequently in the syllabaries of
deities written ’El-Mer (4Jlu-Me-ir); and it is another example
of the prefixing of the word for god to names of deities like ’HIl-
Shaddai, ’El ’Ely6n, U-Tammesh, I-Tehri, I-Téri, Al-Si’, Al-Nashu
(Amurru p. 158), also Il-Kanshan, and Il-Ashirta (Lutz EBL p. 4).
The custom of actually pronouncing Hl ‘‘god’’ as a prefix to the
name of deities, as the writer has indicated, was apparently West
Semitic. Moreover, one needs only to consult the names of the

*See Krausz Géotternamen p. 9, and Hommel’s editorial note in same,
p. 56. Radau reads AN-4MAR-TU, holding that MAR-TU was identified
with the highest and oldest Babylonian god AN (BE 28, p. 41).

168 - THE EMPIRE OF THE AMORITES.

patron deities of scribes and of individuals to see how extensively
not only Uru but other West Semitic deities were worshipped in
the time of the First Dynasty (see Chapter VIII).

The name of the counterpart of this deity at Babylon, namely
Marduk, as well as other names of deities like Nergal, etc., who
were regarded as sun-gods, considered in connection with the
Aramaic form of the name ’Uru SN), also the Talmudic word for
‘“sunset’’? (’éria), as well as other considerations, made it seem
that the god Amurru was a solar deity (Amurru 100 ff.). How-
ever, it must be admitted that the West Semitic deity, Amurru or
Uru, regarded as the original deity from whom the others evolved,
was primarily a storm-deity in the land where he was indigenous.
This is determined by the syllabaries, where his name is so often
equated with Adad. Transference of the deity from his original
mountainous home to the fertile plain between the rivers, where
the inhabitants were dependent upon agriculture, was probably
responsible for the solar traits that were assumed.

Anu and Antu, the writer has suggested, contrary to the accepted
opinion that they were Babylonian or originally Sumerian, had
their origin among the Western Semites (see Amurru p. 142). A
number of considerations lead to this conclusion, among which are
the following.

The name Anna or Ana very probably is found in the personal
names of Chaldeans who made revelations at the time the tradi-
tional dynasty of Aloros ruled (see Chapter VIII); the second
revelation was by Av7duros, the third by Avyperros etc., and the fourth
by ?Avwdados,

The temple of Ashur erected or restored about 2400 B. C. was
built in honor of the gods Anu and Adad, the latter being a West
Semitic deity; and as Assyria was not settled by Babylonians as
heretofore held (see Chapter XVI), but by people from the lands
lying west of the country, it seems reasonable to infer that the
former was also West Semitic. Anu also figures in certain inscrip-
tions of Assyrian kings prominently associated with Dagan,
another West Semitic deity. Anu and Dagan are addressed in
the prayer of Ashurbanipal (Craig Rel. Texts II 21: Rev. 2). The
laws of Anu and Dagan are referred to by the Assyrian kings.

Antu is well known in place names in Amurru. Anathoth, the

XVII. THE DEITIES OF AMURRU. — 169

city where Jeremiah grew up, is a little distance to the north-east
of Jerusalem. Béth-Anoth (Josh. 15: 59) is identified with Beit
‘Ainfin in the neighborhood of Bethzur. This may be the ancient
shrine referred to as a city conquered by Seti I (BAR III, 114).
Ramses II mentions a city on the mount of Béth-Anoth (BAR IIT
356). A city in Judah bearing the same name was also conquered
by Sheshonk I (BAR IV, 762). Bethany (written in Syriac Béth
‘Ani’ &9Y MD on the road to Jericho from Jerusalem, as well as
Bethany beyond Jordan may also have been shrines of Anu.
As heretofore suggested by Professor Montgomery (see Amurru
p. 143), Anu may be found in the personal name ‘Aner, written
An-ram in the Samaritan Hebrew. ‘Anath father of Shamgar
(Josh. 3: 831) may be an abbreviated name which originally con-
tained that of the goddess.

Anu also figures in the nomenclature of the Cappadocian tablets,
ef. Gimil-A-nim (RA VIII p. 149), Pi-sa-A-na, and [Id]-sa-A-na
(Babyloniaca VI p. 191, 7:11). The latter name appears in a tab-
let referring to a decision rendered in the ‘‘house of the judgment
of Ana,’’ concerning some property belonging to the god. This
shows that there was a temple of Anu in Cappadocia.

The worship of Antu was carried comparatively early to Hgypt.
The priesthood of the goddess at Thebes is already mentioned in
the time of Thutmose III. Ramses II gave his favorite daughter
a name which meant ‘‘daughter of Anath.’’ Since it has not been
shown that Babylonian influence had been exerted upon Hgypt in
the early period, it must be assumed at least that the goddess was
borrowed from the people of Amurru.

What seems to be the most important centre of Anu and Antu
worship is at ‘Ana and ‘Anatho on the Euphrates (see Chapter
XI); and it is not improbable that from this quarter it was spread
throughout the adjoining lands.

Anu was carried to Erech in a very early period by the Semites ;
for whom the temple called H-Anna was erected. Lugal-zaggisi,
Gudea, and Ur-Engur, regarded him as the ‘‘lord of lords.’’ The
Sumerians very probably adopted Anna as one of their deities.
The goddess Antu, however, does not seem to have been introduced
at Erech in the early period; Ishtar appears as the consort of Anu.
It would seem also that Lulubu was another city in which the wor-

170 THE EMPIRE OF THE AMORITES.

ship of these deities had been introduced. In the inscription of
Annu-banini of an early period, who had erected a statue to Ishtar
in the mountain of Batir, the king invokes for it the protection of
the gods Annu and Antu, Enlil and Ninlil, Adad and Ishtar, Sin and
Shamash, etc. Anu was also early worshipped at Kish, another
Semitic centre. It is to be noted that the name of Anu-mutabil,
governor of the city of Der, who probably lived about the time of
the First Dynasty, is also compounded with that of the deity.

In connection with the question of the origin of the gods it must
be regarded as significant that the worship of Antu was not intro-
duced at Erech until the Greek period, and even then it does not
appear in the nomenclature. Nor was the name introduced into
Assyria; whereas in the broad expanse of Amurru and in Egypt
we have so much evidence of it; and where it left such an indelible
impression.

Anu has been regarded by scholars as being originally a sun-
god whose great luminary was in the heavens, who became in the
development of later theological systems the chief deity of the
heavens. In Hgypt the goddess is represented sitting upon a
throne, with a feathered head-dress similar to the representations
of Ashirta with whom she is often paired. She has a lance and a
shield in her right hand and a battle-axe in the left; or she is rep-
resented as clad in a panther-skin. She is a warlike goddess and
sensual; is called lady of heaven, daughter of the sun, ete. (Miller
EM p. 156).

Ashir, whose name is written in cuneiform 4-Sir, A-Sa-ru-um,
A-usar, A-Sur, and Aés-sur, and in the West Semitic script WN
(also DN) was in all probability of West Semitic origin (Amurru
138 ff.). This conclusion followed the consideration that the name
did not appear in early Babylonian nomenclature and because of
its prominence in the early Cappadocian tablets and in the Phoe-
nician and Aramaic inscriptions. Further the name Ashirta
appears to be the feminine of Ashir, even though Ashirta is in
most cases written with ayin, while the few cases in which Ashir
is found in the late Phoenician and Aramaic inscriptions the name
is written with aleph. If this is correct, the original habitat of
Ashir it would seem was probably the same as Ashirta.

XVII. THE DEITIES OF AMURRU. {Fi

An interesting confirmation of the assumption that the deity is
West Semitic is the fact that Ashar is found in the Amorite Name
Syllabary in the name Ia-[ku]-wn--A-sa-ru-wm (UMBS Rose 6),
and it is not found in the Akkadian. It is to be noted, however,
that the deity is not found in the few known Hana tablets, or in
the Harran Census. It is to be further noted that the feminine
Ashirta or the Assyrian Ishtar do not figure prominently in these
texts, occurring once in the names of the former, Idin-?RI, and a
few times in the latter, which of course belong to the late Assyrian
period. (See also Chapter X.)

Ashur, whose symbol is the solar disc, seems to have been a sun-
god, in Assyria. This is probably shown also by the name Asir-
Sami. ‘“Ashir is Shamash, or ‘‘Ashir is my sun,’’ found in the
Cappadocian tablets, and yet like Amurru he is also a mountain-
god, ef. 4A8-Sur ilu si-ru a-8i-ib E-har-sag-kur-kur-ra ‘¢Ashur the
exalted god who dwells in ‘the temple of the mountain of the
world’? (KTA 3, Rev. 23), and also Asur Sadi rabi ‘¢ Ashur, the
great mountain’ (CT 26,1: 11). His warlike attributes, which
are pictured also in his emblem of the solar dise by the represen-
tation of a warrior with an arrow, are well set forth in the passage
‘¢ Ashur the good one, strong warrior, mighty in battle, who burns
up the enemy, thunders amongst his foes, who bursts forth like a
flame of fire, who decides the battle, and like the snare or certain
death is the onset of his arms’’ (AJSLI 28 p. 186).

Ashirta offers the most complicated and intricate of all problems
in connection with the names of West Semitic deities, the reason
being that her worship was spread throughout the Semitic world;
that in certain lands her sex was changed; and that her name
appears in so many different forms. In inscriptions coming from
- Amurru her name appears in the name Abdi-ASirta in the Amarna
letters, A-si-ir-ta and As-ra-tum(ti, ta) ; in the Moabite inscription
it is written ‘strt; and in the Phoenician inscriptions ‘strh, ‘strt,
also ’Srh and ’str (late). In one of the letters of Ashirti-washur
found at Ta‘anach, belonging to the Amarna period, the oracle
of Ashirat is referred to.® We learn that ‘‘Solomon went after

5 See Hrozny Ta‘annek No. 1:21. Since the name of the deity of this

172 THE EMPIRE OF THE AMORITES.

Ashtoreth, the goddess of the Zidonians’’ (1 Kgs. 11:5). In the
peace treaty of Ramses IT with the Hittites, Ashtart is looked upon
as a goddess of that land. The deity oi figures prominently in
the West Semitic names of the Cappadocian tablets.

Ashtaroth was the city of Og, king of Bashan (Deut. 1: 14; Josh.

9: 10, etc.) Ashtaroth-Karnaim is mentioned in Gilead, as the
place of Chedorlaomer’s defeat of the Rephaim (Gen. 14: 5).
Beeshtarah, the Levitical city in Manasseh (Josh. 21: 27) is
regarded as Béth ‘Ashtera~‘‘ Temple of Ashtera,’’ and is thought
to be identical with Ashtaroth of 1 Ch.6: 71. Thutmose III refers
to a Palestinian city ‘ASstiratu (Miller AF 162, 313). “As-tar-te
is also mentioned in the Amarna tablets.
- In Jerome’s Onomasticon, two forts bear this name, which are
nine miles apart, lying between Adara and Abila. Ashtaroth the
city of Og is placed six miles from Adara. Karnaim Ashtaroth,
apparently the same as Ashtaroth-Karnaim, is said to be a town
lying in the angle formed by the Nahr er-Raqqad and the Yarmuk,
which apparently is represented to-day by Tell ‘Ashtara about two
miles south-east of Hl Merkez where the governor of the Hauran
resides. Ashtaroth-Karnaim is also placed by some at Tell
Ashary, a site about five miles south of Tell ‘Ashtara.

The worship of Ashirta was early introduced into Babylonia by
the Semites who migrated there. The earliest name known to the
writer that is compounded with it, is Hn-bi-As-tar, a pre-Sargonic
ruler of Kish. The name in time was pronounced Ishtar in Baby-
lonia and Assyria, although occasionally such West Semitic forms
as As-tar-tu (time of Hsarhaddon) are found. In the early Baby-
lonian inscription of Anu-banini of Lulubu, Ishtar (4RI) appears
as the consort of 27M. An inscription of Lugal-tar-si is dedicated
to Anu and to ‘Ninni which is a Sumerian name of Ishtar. As the
consort of Marduk her name appears as Sarpanitum. She is also
the consort of Ashur in Assyria, and of other gods, the explanation
being that the name Ishtar in many instances had become the gen-
eric name for ‘‘goddess.’’? She was also regarded as the daughter

Amorite is written phonetically A-si-rat, it scarcely seems proper to read
the ideogram ¢RI in this name Ishtar, as has been done; and especially
as we have no justification for this reading in any West Semitic inscription.

XVII. THE DEITIES OF AMURRU. 173

of Sin and Anu. (See Jastrow RBBA 105 ff.). A Babylonian
hymn, rewritten in the Greek period, informs us that in her
original home, where her name was Ashrat, and regarded as ‘‘the
goddess of the plain,’’ she was the consort of Amurru (4Mar-Tu-e),
‘lord of the mountain’’ (SBH, 139: 143-5).

A study of the epithets of the Babylonian Ishtar shows that she
is credited with playing the réle of most of the gods, besides being
the mother goddess, the goddess of wedlock and maternity. She
is regarded as being a storm and a war goddess; as the giver of
vegetation; she presides over rivers, canals, flocks, ete. She is
identified with other goddesses, and in consequence partakes of
their attributes, or those of their consorts. Like Aphrodite, in
some parts of Babylonia, she was also recognized as a dissolute
goddess, and prostitution was practiced in her name. The pas-
sage Deut. 23:18 together with other evidences would seem to show
that these immoral rites had been introduced from the West.

The worship of Ashirta or ‘Astarte was carried to Hgypt where
she was worshipped in the city Ramses and elsewhere. Her chief
temple was at Memphis. In Egypt she was known as the goddess
of war, of horses and the chariot. Anath and Astarte were ‘‘the
shields’’ of Ramses III (BAR IV: 105). Qedesh, perhaps another
manifestation of ‘Astarte, is pictured as a nude goddess standing
on a lion, holding flowers in one hand and a serpent in the other,
and wearing the sun and moon on her head. ‘Asit, who always
rides on horseback, may be another form of Astarte (Miller EM
p. 156).

In Arabia the deity Athtar, regarded as the same as Ishtar, was
recognized as masculine. Some scholars maintain that ‘Attar or
‘Atar(Wy), who appears late in Aram, is a modification ; although
this is by no means certain. On the Moabite stone (ninth century)
‘Ashtar is identified with Chemosh, and is also regarded by
scholars as masculine.

Many scholars hold that the original home of the goddess was in
Babylonia. Barton and others regard it as fairly well established
that Ishtar was a universal Semitic deity, but that Arabia is its
home. While it is one of those questions that cannot be deter-
mined, and every one is entitled to his or her view, there is little
question in the mind of the writer in the light of the above, that

174 THE EMPIRE OF THE AMORITES.

this goddess emanated from Amurru; and very probably from
Halab or Aleppo (see Chapter XII).

Barton finds the origin of the name in the root ’tara, as a term
connected with irrigation. Paton follows him and suggests that
it applied to the numen of the spring and meant ‘‘self waterer.’”°
There may be reasons based on the attributes of the god Athtar
for this conception, but scarcely on those of Ashtaroth-Ishtar.

There is no way of determining whether the view that Ashirta
is the feminine of Ashir is correct, but it appears perfectly rea-
sonable in spite of all the objections that have been raised. Meta-
thesis could have taken place and Ashirta or Ashrat became
Ashtar. Subsequently when the etymology had been lost sight of,
the feminine ending could have been added, when Ashtar became
Ashtartu. The place name Anathoth of the Old Testament would
seem also to contain a double feminine ending. Such forms as
qinnatate, feminine plural of qinnu ‘‘family,’’? which occur in the
Babylonian contract literature, must be explained in the same way.

Ata or Atta was a West Semitic deity frequently found in the
Aramaic inscriptions. It is found in a name in the Harran Census,
A-ta-id-ri, and in A-ta-su-ri, Sa-ku-a-ta-a, ete., also in the Assyrian
period. (See Tallqvist APN.)

Attar or Atar, the deity of the Aramaeans, as mentioned above,
is regarded by some scholars as identical with the Arabian Athtar
and the Biblical Ashtart. In the Assyrian documents it is repre-
sented in the names <A-tar-bi-’-di, -kam-mu, -idri, -qamu, -surt,
(= We ny ), Bir-A-tar, *A-tar-ma-la-ahu, and in the Babylonian
documents “At-tar-niri, A-tar-idri, A-tar-ri-El, ete. This deity’s
name, as is well known, is combined with Ate in the syncretistic
name Atargatis (TMYIWY), the chief goddess of the Aramaeans,
whose worship existed in the late period throughout Syria.

Dagan, whose name is written Da-gan, Da-ga-an (Amarna 317:
2), Da-gan-na, and Da-gu-na (Bezold Catalogue IV 1482), was wor-
‘shipped in different parts of Amurru, but his original home seems
to have been in the middle Mesopotamian region. As mentioned
above, Chapter IX, about a dozen names in the few tablets dis-
covered as coming from the kingdom of Hana are compounded

6 See article ‘‘Ishtar,’’ Hastings Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics.

XVII. THE DEITIES OF AMURRU. 175

with that of Dagan, and a number bear the title ‘‘priest of Dagan.’’
In Tirga, probably the chief city of Hana, Dagan was apparently
the patron god. Shamshi-Adad, ‘‘king of Assyria, king of the
universe,’’ restored the temple of Dagan, and recorded himself ag
a worshipper of that god. The oath formulae of the contracts from
that region show that the people swore by Shamash, Dagan, and
Itur-Mer. The property recorded in one of the deeds is said to be
that of these three deities (see Chapter XI).

In Canaan the deity was worshipped by the Philistines at Gaza
(Judg. 16: 23), and at Ashdod (1 Sam. 5:1). There was also a
temple of Dagan near Joppa, which was probably Béth-Dagon
(Josh. 15:41). This fane and its surroundings are represented by
the present site Beit Dejan, about six miles south-east of that city.
There is another Beit Dejan about six miles south-east of N ablus ;
and Josephus mentions a fortress above Jericho called Dagon
(Ant. XII 8:1). One of the writers of the Amarna tablets was a
certain Dagan-takala. The personal name J-ti-Da-gan occurs in
a tablet from Cappadocia (Babyloniaca 1907 p. 19).

Dagan was carried to Babylonia by the Semites at an early
period. The first appearance in Babylonian literature is in per-
sonal names of the time of Manishtusu. In the obelisk of that
ruler several names are compounded with the name of the deity.
Dungi, in his thirty-seventh year, dedicated a temple to Dagan.
- ‘Two names of rulers of the Nisin Dynasty, which was founded by
an Amorite from Mari, are compounded with the god’s name;
namely, Idin-Dagan and Ishme-Dagan. Hammurabi in his Code
calls himself the warrior of Dagan. More than one early king of
Assyria also bore the name Ishme-Dagan. Ashur-nasir-pal (883-
859 B. C.), Shamshi-Adad (823-811 B. C.), and other Assyrian
kings claimed to be devotees of Anu and Dagan.

There seems to be considerable difference of opinion concerning
the nature of the god Dagan or Dagon.? Since Dagan is equated
with Enlil (CT 24 6: 22 ete.), it seems reasonable to regard him as
possessing similar attributes.

Ha, as Chiera has proposed, is probably a West Semitic deity

"For a full discussion on his nature, see Paton ‘“Dagon’’ in the Ency-
clopaedia of Religion and Ethics.

176 THE EMPIRE OF THE AMORITES.

(UMBS X11 39f.). In the name syllabaries which he published,
he finds Anu, Ea, and ‘IM grouped together, and also Dagan, Ka,
and Ishtar. In the Amorite syllabary he found El, Ha, and Ishtar
grouped together. If his contention should prove correct, then
very probably the three gods of the triad, Anu, Enlil, and Ha are
Amorite.

In the Cassite period the deity Ea-sharru occurs in personal
names, as: Eri-ba-*H-a-sarri, Ib-mi-4H-a-sarri, Nir-4E-a-sarri, ete.
This deity was worshipped at Calah, in which city Ashur-nasir-pal
established an image of him. In the Amarna letters sent from
Mitanni, Ka-sharru figures in two lists of deities: in one, Teshub,
Shaushka, Amon, Shimike, and Ha-sharri; and in the other, Shi-
mike, Amon, and Ka-sharri. Are we to see another syncretistic
formation in this name? Shar, written Shar, Shar-ri, LUGAL,
and HI in Hittite names, occurs frequently, as Ha-at-tu-Shar,
Ah-li-ib-Shar-ri, It-hi-ib-Shar, ete. (see Clay PN p. 33). One feels
inclined to inquire at least whether Shar was Semitic or Hittite
(see under Shar below).

En-lil, whose name was written with two Sumerian ideograms,
En “lord’’ and Lil ‘‘the storm,’’ is considered by most scholars
to be of Sumerian origin. The chief proof besides the Sumerian
form of his name is found in Reissner SBH 13: 1-7, where what are
called Enlil’s seven chief names are found. They are: Lord of
the lands; Lord of the living command, Divine Enlil; Father of
Sumer; Shepherd of the dark-headed people; Hero, who seest by
thine own power; Strong lord, directing mankind; and Hero, who
causest multitudes to repose in peace (see Jastrow RBBA p. 70).
The argument for the Sumerian origin of this deity based upon
this evidence can by no means be said to be conclusive. As the
Babylonians adopted Adad and other deities, it is reasonable to
suppose that the ‘‘black-headed’’ Sumerians may have adopted
this deity. Further, the fact that his name is written in Sumerian
is no more proof of its origin than that Ashratu, the consort of
Amurru, was Sumerian, whose name was written Nin-gui-edin-na
(Eme-sal: Gdsan-gi-edin-na), ‘‘the lady of the plain.’’

Originally Enlil was a storm deity, as his name implies. He was
a god of the mountain. His temple was called E-kur, which means
‘house of the mountain.’? His consort was designated Nin-har-

XVII. THE DEITIES OF AMURRU. ho Gr

sag, ‘‘lady of the mountain.’’ He is called Shadu-rabi ‘‘great
mountain.’? When transferred to the alluvial plain Babylonia,
where agriculture was extensively practiced, and which so greatly
depended upon the winter rains, Enlil becomes a god of fertility or
an agricultural deity. Primarily, however, he is a veritable Adad,
for ‘‘he causes the heavens to tremble and the earth to quake.’’
Moreover in the Sumerian hymn above referred to, there is no indi-
cation of his original qualities, but the epithets reflect only a
broader and more general character than had been assigned him
in later times.

Although Enlil was the chief patron deity of Nippur, in the
Name Syllabaries of the time of the First Dynasty found in that
city, his name occurs only twice, unless it is assumed, with Chiera
(OMBS XI 38 ff.), that it is represented by the ideogram 7/M.
Instead of the later triad, Anu, Enlil, and Ha, there appears in
the Semitic lists, the triad, Anu, Ha, and “7M. As stated
above, the attributes of the deity ‘7M are identical with those of
Enlil, the god of the storm and atmospheric conditions.

Gir was the name of a deity in the land of Amurru as well as the
name of a country (see Chapter III). In the West Semitic inscrip-
tions a number of names are compounded with the deity, as Gir-
milki (773, 29074, 237793, etce. See Cook North Semitic Inscrip-
tions), which would show that his worship was continued up to a
late period. But we are dependent largely upon evidence from
Babylonian sources for the existence of this Amorite god. ‘¢Gir Sa
birq: ‘‘Gir of the lightning,’’ sa Sadi ‘‘of the mountains’’ is also
identified with “Kur-Gal (=Amurru), ‘Mar-tu (—Amurru), and
ISAR-SAR (see CT 24 89-94). 4Gir is also identified with Nergal
an importation from the West (C7 25 50: 15). The sign is also
found in the ideographic writing of his name. ‘GIR-GIR-u—4IM
(CT 25 17: 31). *Sar-ra-pu—*Sar-gir-ra Mar* i. e. ‘‘Shar-Girra
of Amurru (CT 25 35: 24) is another syncretistic formation. Line
26 of the same text reads Sar-Gir-ra-Su*. The element appears
in the name Nin-Gir-Zu (or Su) also written Nin-Zu-Gir, the deity
of Tello, who is identified with the West Semitic In-Urta. In this
connection it is natural to think also of the deity En-Gur, in the
name of the founder of the Ur Dynasty, since the change from Gar
to Gor (written Gur) offers no difficulty. The comparison is at

178 THE EMPIRE OF THE AMORITES.

least inviting because of other rulers of this dynasty bearing Semi-
tic names. Even Dun-gi is not the pronunciation of the second
ruler’s name as shown by the complement ra in the Sumerian name '
4Dyn-Gi-ra-kalam-ma, and perhaps others. It is not improbable
that these Sumerian forms represent Semitic names. Since the
phonetic change of g into m is well established in Sumerian, the
latter being the Eme-sal for the former, and as so many cuneiform
signs beginning with m also appear with g, the question arises
whether it may not be possible that Gir and Mar are dialectically
connected even in names found in the West.

It is to be noted also that GiR has the reading Su-mu-qa-an,
Su-mu-ug-ga, and Sak-kan (CT 29 46: 8,9); also Sa-kan (CT 12
3j). This may be found in the West Semitic name Gur-sakan
(73071), perhaps a name formation like Gir-Ba‘ al (9pa33) and
Gir-‘Ashteroth (M7NwWY73). Note also the formula GIR = dumu
4Babbar-ge=4 a-anGIR, OT 24 32: 112.

Hani occurs in several names found on Babylonian tablets, cf..
UR-*Ha-ni, Gal-*Ha-ni, etce., of the Ur Dynasty; *Ha-ni-ra-bi and
Awil-‘Ha-m of the First Dynasty; and Ha-ni-be-el-gas-st of the
Cassite period, ete. In the Harran Census the names Ha-an-da-di,
Ha-an-su-ri, and Bir-Ha-a-nu occur, which would seem to associate
the deity with that part of the region.

Hani bears the title be-lum ku-nu-uk ‘‘lord of the seal’’ (SBH
50:8); and also is called ilu sa dupsarriti ‘‘the god of the scribes’’
(Shurpu Il: 175). He together with Nisaba his consort are cred-
ited with being the givers of the most ancient laws now known (see
Chapter XT).

Lahmu and Lahamu. The only trace of the worship of Lahmu
in the West is in the well known place name Béth-Lehem in Judah,
and also in Zebulun, now represented by Bét Lahm, about seven
miles north-west of Nazareth. These deities figure prominently
in the Marduk-Tiamat creation legend, which as previously shown
also emanated from the West (see Amurru 44 ff.). The names of
the deities do not seem to have been used in the composition of
names by the Babylonians and Assyrians. In fact besides the
creation legend adopted by the Assyrians, in which the names
occur, they are only found in late Syllabaries, where they are des-

XVII. THE DEITIES OF AMURRU. 179

ignated as god and goddess (anum and antum); see Deimel Pan-
theon Babylonicum p. 162.

Marduk has been regarded as being the contracted pronunciation
of a syncretized name Amar-Utug, combining the West Semitic
god Amar or Amur with Utug. The basis for this assumption is
the formula Amar-Utug = %A-ma-ru (B. 11566), the personal name
U-ri-Marduk of the Cassite period (Clay PN), together with the
fact that the Marduk-Tiamat myth is West Semitic. If the name
Marduk originated in Babylon in this way it should not be found
in the West, except through influence from Babylonia. The fact is
there is an almost complete absence of the use of the name in the
West, in spite of the claims of the Pan-Babylonists that the
Canaanitic civilization was imported from Babylonia.

Marduk was the local god of Babylon. As the city is scarcely
mentioned in the inscriptions prior to the First Dynasty, neither
is the name of Marduk. Even in the Name Syllabaries of that
period it does not occur. But with the ascendancy of Babylon
under Hammurabi he became the chief god of the pantheon, when
he supplanted all other gods. The nomenclature thereafter of all
the Babylonian cities showed the extensive influence of his worship.
And as is known, Babylon continued to be the centre of the hege-
mony established by Hammurabi for nearly two thousand years.

Mash was the name of a deity in Amurru as well as the name
of a country and a mountain. There was also a city named
Ki-Mash ‘‘place of Mash’’ (see Chapter XII). Although the god
has not been heretofore recognized in the West, it would seem that
his name is probably compounded in that of a hero in David’s time,
Mash-mannah (1 Chron. 12: 10); in Mish-‘am (DYw9), a name in
Benjamin (1 Chron. 8: 12); and in the gentilic name Mishraites
CY IW, 1 Chron. 2:53). In Amurru it was conjectured that per-
haps in the absence of any etymological explanation of Shamash,
it may have been from Sa Mash ‘‘(the god) of Mash,’’ like the
Arabic Dhii’l Shara etce., in other words that the mountain Mashu
was his habitat (see Amurru p. 127).

The consort of Mash was Mashtu. They are called the children
of the god Sin (Amurru p. 200). Mash is also a name of the god
‘Nin-IB; the sign MASH is used interchangeably with 4Nin-IB.

180 THE EMPIRE OF THE AMORITES.

The Aramaic equivalent, NW IN. for the name, found on the busi-
ness documents of Murashu Sons seemed to point to the reading
En-Mashtu as the god’s name. En-Ushtu is also possible, which
could be from En-Urta or In-Urta.

It was also contended in Amurru (p. 78, and MI 1 ff.) that the
deity Mash was carried by the Semites to Babylonia at a very early
time. In the first three dynasties, Kesh, Erech, and Ur, names
compounded with the deity Mash or Mesh predominate. Hspe-
cially at Hrech in the early period do we find evidence of the wor-
ship of this deity. Some have translated this element as meaning
‘chero,’’ as for example the name Mes-ki-ag-nun-na is said to mean
‘“‘the hero the beloved of the highest.’’ Rather does it mean
‘‘Mesh is the beloved of the great one,’’ or ‘‘Mesh is the great
beloved.’’ Names setting forth the hero character of individuals
were not given at birth; and we have no reason for believing that
they are titles. (See the discussion on the name Gilgamesh Chap-
ter VIII.) The early passage, reading galu “Mes sangu Unu(g)™-
ga ‘‘man of the god Mesh, the priest of Erech’’ (BE 2 87 1: 30) ;
the early seal reading Nin-Unug" en Mes é Unug™ ‘‘Nin-Uruk,
high priest of the god Mesh, in the temple of Hrech’’ (Collection de
Clercq 83), the personal names Ur-Mesh dumu Lu-Unug" ‘‘Ur-
Mesh, son of Awil-Uruk (RA VIII p. 31), show conclusively that
a deity Mesh was worshipped in Erech (see Mise. Inse. p. 3).

The character of the deity may probably be inferred from the
syncretistic formation Uru ™*#Mas (CT 24 10: 8); in other
words that Mash was a deity similar to the mountain or storm-
deity Uru. The association of the god with the mountain Mashu,
as above, would seem to support this view. This is confirmed in
another way. The god Nergal is a transformed Uru from the
West. Another name of Nergal is Mesh-Lam-Ta-e ‘‘Mesh sends
forth the sprout,’’ and this deity is from Amurru (see below under
Nergal). Mash, Mesh, and Mish are also elements that figure
prominently in the temple names of Nineveh, Cutha, and Akkad.

Nabi is also regarded by the writer as being of West Semitic
origin (Amurru p. 144). The fact that his name figures promi-
nently in the nomenclature of West Semitic peoples; and that
there was a city Nebo in Moab (Numb. 32: 3, 38), probably near
Mt. Nebo, the place of Moses’ death (Numb. 33: 47), as well as a

XVII. THE DEITIES OF AMURRU. 181

city in Judah by that name (Ezr. 2: 29), make it appear highly
probable that the original home of the deity was in Amurru. What
is especially confirmatory of this conjecture is the fact that in the
Akkadian Name Syllabary from Nippur of the period of Hammu-
rabi the name does not appear; but in the Amorite Syllabary the
name I-zi-Na-bu-u is found. Owing to the great ingress of Amor-
ites in this period some names are compounded with that of Nabi.
The deity also received recognition on the part of the kings. In
Hammurabi’s reign, ‘‘Fizida the beloved temple of Nabii’’ is cared
for. The date for his sixteenth year reads: ‘‘The year in which
the throne of Nabi was built.’’ See also the twenty-seventh year
of Ammi-ditana (LIH III 198, 235, and 250). Earlier than this,
we have no knowledge that the deity was recognized. At any time,
however, the antiquity of his shrine may be shown to be much
greater.

Nashhu or Nashuh is a deity found frequently in names of the
Harran Census, as Nashhu-gabri, ete. This form occurs rarely
outside of these tablets (see Tallqvist APN). |

In the inscriptions of Ashurbanipal the fire-god Nusku is fre-
quently referred to. This king restored his temple, E-melam-anna
in Harran. From his texts also we learn that he is closely related
to Sin, Girru, In-Urta, and Nergal.2 These are West Semitic gods.
His consort’s name is Sadarnunna. In publishing the tablets of
the Harran Census, Johns proposed that Nusku was very likely a
Syrian god originally, and that his name in the Census appears
Nashhu. This being correct Nashhu doubtless more correctly rep-
resents the actual pronunciation of his name in his original habitat.
At an early date the worship of this West Semitic deity was intro-
duced at Nippur, where his name was written Nusku.

Nergal is another name which like Marduk is a contracted pro-
nunciation of the ideographic writing Ne-Uru-Gal; and was also
an importation from the West (Amurru 114 ff.). Other names of
this deity are Sar-Girra, Mes-Lam-Ta-e, ete. These two gods are
said to have come from Mar™ (Amurru, or Mari), and from Su*,
which is a district in Mesopotamia (CT 25 35: 24-26). The name
“Mes-Lam-Ta-e probably means ‘‘the god Mesh sends forth fruit

8 See Streck VB VII 3 p. 762 and Tallqvist APN p. 259.

182 THE EMPIRE OF THE AMORITES.

(or the sprout).’? The habitat of Mesh or Mash, who is thus
regarded as identical with Nergal, as noted above, is the mountain
Mash. Like the contracted pronunciation Marduk, which also
arose in Babylonia, the form Nergal was not used in the West
prior to the exile, with one exception, which occurs on a seal found
at Ta‘anach; the inscription of which reads: A-ta-na-ah-il
(NI-NI) apil Ha-ab-si-im arad Ne-Uru-Gal ‘‘Atanab-ili, son of
Habsim, servant of Nergal.’? The seal was unquestionably of
Western origin, but the script is Babylonian.

Whether the ideogram Ne-Uru-Gal was read or pronounced
Nergal in this instance, or whether it was simply employed to rep-
resent the name of some god worshipped in Palestine, perhaps
Gir, Mash, Uru, etc., cannot be determined. It should be empha-
sized that this is the only known use of the name in the early period,
when according to the Pan-Babylonists the civilization of Palestine
is‘supposed to be essentially Babylonian.

Resheph ‘‘lightning,’’ ‘‘flame,’’ the lord of heaven, lord of eter-
nity and ruler of the gods, the warrior, is well known from the late
Aramaic inscriptions of northern Syria. As far as known to the
writer, this deity is not mentioned in the cuneiform inscriptions.
He figures, however, in Egypt, where he is depicted wearing a high
conical cap, to which often is tied a long ribbon falling over his
back, and which is ornamented with the head of a gazelle. He car-
ries a shield, spear, club, and sometimes a quiver on his back. In
one inscription he is called Reshpu-Saramana, a syneretistic form
which may mean that he is identified with the god Shalman.
Together with Min (a harvest deity) and Qedesh, Resheph forms
a triad in Egypt (see Miiller HM p. 155). ;

Shamash, in the Amarna letters, is looked upon as the leading
deity of the Amorites. It may be due to the fact that the chief
deity of Egypt, Amon-Re, was solar, that he occupied such a promi-
nent place in the salutations of the Amorite princes to the Pharaoh,
in which he is called ‘‘my Shamash, my god, my lord.”’

The place name Béth-Shemesh near Gaza, perhaps the personal
name Shimshéon (Samson), as well as names found in the Cappado-
cian tablets, show how widespread was his worship. An important
centre of Shamash worship was found in the Mesopotamian dis-
trict, where he was the foremost of the triad who were invoked in

XVII. THE DEITIES OF AMURRU. 183

the oath formulae of the Hana contracts: Shamash, Dagan, and
Itur-Mer (see Chapter XI). At an early period the Semites car-
ried his worship into Babylonia, where in the cities Sippar and
Larsa he became the patron deity. He is perhaps the best known
god in the Babylonian and Assyrian pantheons.

The deity Shamash was early carried to Arabia, and looked upon
as a goddess. Winckler held the view that the deity was consid-
ered feminine also in early Hittite groups.® As mentioned above,
the name found in the Nippur Name Syllabary, Tu-l-id-7Sam-
Si(-8i), shows that the deity here was construed as feminine. (See
also under Mash.)

Sharu. There is a god Sharu that has figured very prominently
among the Semites in Amurru and Babylonia, as well as in other
lands. An important centre of his worship was at Umma, in Baby-
lonia, at present called Jokha. His name in this region was
written with the ideogram lagab with 1gi-gunu inserted, the correct
reading for which, namely Shara, is made known by the Yale Sylla-
bary (MI 53:111). As in the case of the god Uru or Amurru (see
Chapter VII), other signs having values pronounced. like Shara,
Sharru, etc., without regard for the meaning of the signs, were also
employed by the scribes to reproduce the pronunciation of the
name, as:

ETT FOE AT 2, Pree PEt part

IM meaning ‘‘wind’’; BARA meaning ‘‘shrine’’?; MARUN
meaning ‘‘court, fold, sheep,’° HZ meaning ‘‘mass, totality’’;
LUGAL meaning ‘‘king’’; AGAR meaning ‘‘field,’?’ SHAR mean-
ing ‘‘vegetable growth’’; etc. all these signs having values
pronounced like Shar, Shara, Sharru, were used by the scribes to
reproduce the sound of the deity’s name, who had been introduced
in Babylonia from the West. With this practice of the ancient
scribes, Langdon by his criticism and assertions apparently does
not seem to be acquainted (RA 13 p. 161).

®See Mitteilungen der deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft No. 35 p. 53.
10 MARUN = Sara Yale Syllabary No. 112, MI; AGAR = Sara, ibid. No.
2:

184 THE EMPIRE OF THE AMORITES.

The name is also written phonetically Sha-ra, Sha-a-ru, Shar-ru,
Shar-ra, Shar-ri, ete. Perhaps also Sheru, or Sheri! is to be
included as represented in West Semitic names, as Se-ar-id-ri, Ser-
ila-a-a, ete. (see Tallqvist APN); and probably also Da’l Shara,
the god of the Nabataeans.

It is not impossible that many of the names of deities composed of
LUGAL and other elements are Semitic in a Sumerian dress; and
that this ideogram is to be read Shara, like *E-a-a-Sar-ri of the
Amarna letters, which is usually written “H-a-LUGAL (see under
Ea).

Sharu appears especially in names of the early Babylonian
periods, see Sdr-ru-ba-mi, Sar-ru-tab, etc., and probably in the
names Sar-ga-ni-Sar-ri and Bi-in-ga-mi-Sdr-ri (BA V1 3 85 ff.). In
the Ur Dynasty many names are compounded with the deity. For
other compounds in which Shar appears as an element in names
of temples and deities, see the writer’s Misc. Inscr. p. 15.

A large number of personal names among the Hittite-Mitannian
are constituted with a god Shar, cf. Ha-at-tu-Sar, Ah-litb-Sar-ri,
It-hi-ib-Sar, etc. (see Clay PN). Note also the names with Shara,
which are probably from the same source, which have been col-
lected by Sundwall Klio 1913, Elftes Beiheft 190 ff. Naturally the
question arises whether this deity is the same; and if so with which
people, the Semitic or Hittite, did his worship originate. If they
have a common origin, it seems probable that the Hittites may have
borrowed the deity from the Semites; as is clearly evident they
did in several other instances.

The Syllabaries associate the god Shara with Adad, Gir, Mur,
Tlu-Mer, Nergal, In-Urta, ete., which shows that he was regarded
as similar in character. This would seem to indicate that he was
a solar or storm-god. The idea that he was ‘‘a vegetation god”’
or ‘‘the god of flocks,’’ which Langdon has proposed (RA 18, 161),
seems to be justified alone by the employment of two of the signs
used to reproduce the pronunciation of his name (see above). To
differentiate between deities as being solar-gods, vegetation-gods
or storm-gods is more or less artificial, since vegetation is depen-

11 Cf, Ser — etillu (B. 4306), a meaning the sign received perhaps like
the Aramaic Mar ‘‘lord’’ from the name of the deity Mar.

XVI. THE DEITIES OF AMURRU. 185

dent upon the sun and the rains. Moreover, solar-deities are also
vegetation-gods.

Sin was the chief deity of Harran, whence apparently his wor-
ship emanated at an early time. The Assyrian scribes who made
the Harran Census in the seventh century wrote the name S1-’,
showing that they heard a pronunciation of the name in that dis-
trict which was different from that of their own god Sin. (See
Chapter XI.) If the eighth name of Berossus’s antediluvian
kings, ’Aveypwos, is correctly understood to represent Amél-Sin, it
is the earliest reference to the name known. Semites brought the
worship of Sin into Babylonia in an early period. The geograph-
ical names Wilderness of Sin and Mt. Sinai show the influence of
the deity in the country south of Palestine. His worship was car-
ried as far south into Arabia as Hadramoth (see Chapter IT).”

Zababa is a deity in the cuneiform literature whose name has
been read Za-ma-ma, Za-mal-mal, and Za-ga-ga. He is known as
the patron deity of Kish, an early Semitic city in Babylonia. This
deity has been identified with Inurta (4Nin-IB), called mar réstum
ga Ekur “the first son of Ekur’’ in the Hammurabi Code; and is
later regarded as ‘‘the Marduk of battle.’’

The writer has shown from the recently published Chicago Sylla-
bary (see JAOS 37 328 f.) that MA in the name was read bd, thus
Za-ba-ba; and noted that this pronunciation approaches the name
_of the god Ekron, namely Ba‘al Zebib. It was also suggested
that perhaps later we would find more evidence of a deity in Wes-
tern Asia named Zabtib or Zabab, whose name was reproduced in
cuneiform Za-ba-bd. Subsequently it was found that this had
already been anticipated by Winckler (UV AG 18 4 p. 70 f.) in his
advanced notices of the new cuneiform material found at the Hit-
tite centre Boghaz-kéi. In it, he called attention to the prominent
role Za-ba-ba (which he read Za-ga-ga) played among the Hittites
and allied peoples, whom he seemed to think was as prominently
worshipped as Teshup. He had a temple in the capital and prob-
ably was the chief deity of Ellaia and Arzia which is inferred from
the part his name played in the great political treaties. The exist-
ence of the cult of Zababa among these peoples, Winckler held,

12 Note also the passage ‘‘field of Sin the god of Halaba,’’ VS VII 95: 4.

186 THE EMPIRE OF THE AMORITES.

was due to colonization or migration from Babylonia at a time
when Zababa had the same high position that Marduk later had.
If this statement could be supported by evidence of the influence
of the Marduk cult in the West it would have more force.

The disadvantage in not having any light on early Amorite, or
in this instance on early Hittite, history from native sources is
here again felt, in that the date of the earliest reference to the deity
in Babylonian history is so much earlier than the tablets referred
to. In spite of this fact, it seems to the writer that Winckler has
the order reversed; and that Zababa is really a deity like Inurta
with whom he is identified, who was extensively worshipped in the
West; and was carried to Kish at a very early date. Further dis-
coveries will determine whether this is correct.

The syncretistic name ?Ur-4Zababa (CT 24 8:5) is to be noted.
Probably Zababa was also a storm-deity; being the Marduk of
battle and the foremost son of Ekur (see above) would accord with
this idea.

Another discovery which has recently become known may prove
that the name is to be read Ilbaba instead of Zababa. Langdon
has kindly informed the writer that the equation u-ba-ba = 4Z A-
MA-MA occurs on a Berlin text, which is published in a Fest-
schrift dedicated to Hommel. This suggests the equation //-Ba =
4M A (CT 25, 27:6) for comparison. Moreover, in spite of Lucken-
bill’s contention (AJSZ 35 59 f.), the writer’s proposed reading of
MA = ba, in the name seems thus to be confirmed.

It is of course apparent that the trend of what precedes is -
toward regarding practically everything that is Semitic Babylo-
nian as having its origin in Amurru. It seems with the collapse
of the Arabian origin theory of this culture (see Chapter IT) in the
light of what has been offered, and also what might be assembled,
that no other conclusion is possible. As set forth in the introduc-
tion, Semites from Amurru entered the valley at a very early
period. Under foreign influences in the new surroundings the old
culture developed differently, and when in a later period a new
emigration or invasion took place, what had been in the ‘‘melting
pot’’ for a millennium, which we call Akkadian, though still
Semitic, was strikingly different. This evolutionary process needs
no explanation for history shows it has gone on in all ages, and is
going on at present, and will continue to go as long as the world
lasts.

© KARA EYUK
©poGHaz-KiN
fi, Mu 08 my de Meee 4s
[ih rl

(
ig, itech tee
f

YUZGAT,
cy
gure Any. Fs

?HARPUT

o[ DIARBEKIR fit fil, gt jue
od lage

TICRIS iii Aedes" up
Core Mii, “” M4, :

Hay f

Miitnuy,
ff inl fit
lia ” MaMa ly mt ely
. Way?

Hk
Moi, % hued May gti

Mand
us it ity

il
fe bine Wy! ji) ie!

a

bn oy
he Myth, tly “lite,
cis di aid il i ‘SE NIRA

eXHOR SABAH

CARCHERIST )
INEVEH
Mask, 5 pL AW AT
y en {MRUD

Ayla

oan eaqu tu “hip a

ALEPPO
ARBA)

2E NOBIA &
3
lm

RieaR
DEREZ-ZOR sh U/
la P SHARA

SALINTYAG AS

MEDITERRANEAN ..
SEA rnaita
nt Magy yet $e ¥ 2

on
og wa awk
if ult
fie

CYPRUS

OVANA

AMRIT
oPALMYRA

te “
we ‘we
“
QBAGDAD
ACA
2
: |
SIPPAR
6 CUTHA
KUT-EL AMARA

BORSIPPA SY BABYLON
KISH
NIPPVUR

gh 4Nu,
fheataaed
MARAD ©
EON’ G
E ad © SHURUPPAK

°umma
eURUK

Ml Ky yt ee
MOT ati ase

*LAGASH

| WESTERN ASIA

"
:
x
Ad

Y
gbACHISH/a
@

OG, ccttrga tet

%,

2
Coq

Blank Page Digitally Inserted

A-ba-ia, 113
A-ba-ra-ha-am, 41
A-ba-ra-ma, 41
Abbi-Teshshub, 129
Abdi-Ashirta, 127
Abdi-Hiba, 129
Abesha, 144
Abi-esuh,
Abi-hiid, 165
Abi-melech, 165
Abi-shiia,
Abraham, 62
Ab-ram, 165
Abu, 36
Abu-Simbel, 59
A-da-ad, 165
Adad-nirari IT, 159
d a-da-ad] Y, 70
Adapa, 77, 83
Adgi, 166 f
Ad-gi-ilu, 167
Adgi-Siri, 167
Ad-gi-s1-r1-za-bad-du,
167
A-du-na-1-21, 165
A-du-m-ba-‘-al, 165
A-du-mi-tli-a, 165
Aelian, 84
A-ga-al-Marduk, 78

Agum-kakrime, 99, 116

A-HA, 83

Ahi-Jami, 54

Ahi-wedum, 36

Ahmose I, 144

Abu, 36

Ain Shems, 55

Ainsworth, W. F., 109,
110

Akhukarib, 36

A-Kur-Gal, 20

Alaparus, 76, 78, 106

Alap-Uru, 78

Albright, W. F., 73

INDEX.

Aleppo, 124 f
Al-eshshum, 112
Almaqu-hi, 34
Al-Nashu, 167
Aloros, 76, 78, 106
Al-Si’, 167

Al Wurdi, 109, 110
Amait, 141
Amar-a-pa-’, 68
Aman-hashir, 54
Amar-ma-’-a-di, 68
Amar-na-ta-nu, 68
Amar-ra-pa-’, 68
Amar-sa-al-tt, 68

4Amar-Utug, 25, passim

Amegalarus, 76, 78

Amél-Aruru, 17

Amél-4kl-Amar, 68

Ameél-Sin, 78

Amél-Oru, 78

Amemphsinus, 76, 78

Amenhotep II, 147

Amenhotep ITI, 126 f,
147

Amenhotep IV, 126

Amillaros, 106

"amir, 67

amiranu, 6

‘Amm, 34, 36, 41

ammaru, 67

Ammenon, 76, 78

Ammi-bail, 112, 116

Ammi-enshi, 143 ~

Ammi-zaduga, 39

Am-mu-ra-b1, 113

Amoriah, 68

‘Amrit, 72, 103

"Amu, 144

A-mu-ur-ri-i*i, 66

Amurru, 167

‘Ana, 116 ff

Anat, 141

Anatho, 108, 115, 118

(187)

Anathoth, 168
Anbay, 34, 35
An-Kurah, 34
Anna, 168
An-ram, 169
Antu, 168

Anu, 168
Anu-Mastu, 73
Anum-pi-Me-ir, 69
Anusat, 73
Api-Nergal, 81
Apop, 139
arahshamna, 72
Aram, 37, 44
Ar-data, 72, 78, 106
argamanu, 72
Aréli, 72

Ari, 72

Ariél, 72
Arik-dén-ilu, 159
Arpachshad, 37

al Ar-wa-da, 12, 78

Ar-wu-u, 80
Asaph, 55
A-sa-ru-um, 170
Ashir, 170
ASsir-Samst, 171
Ashirta, 171
Ashirta-washur, 54
Ashtaroth, 172

Ashtaroth-Karnaim, 172

4 AS-tar-te, 172
Ashur-uballit, 159
Ashtar-Chemosh, 164
Ashurbanipal, 99
Asit, 141

A-ta or Atta, 174
A-ta-id-r1, 174
A-ta-na-ah-wt, 182
Atar-hasis, 77
Athtar, 34, 173

‘ Attar-‘ Ate, 164
Atum, 141

188

A-usar, 170
Aziru, 127 ff
Ba‘alath, 65, 140
Ba-ah-lu-ti, 115
Balata, 55
Balbi, 109
Ba-lu, 80
Banda-sa-Addu, 81
Barton, G. A., 28, 81,
90, 124, 140, 173 f
Baudissin, W. W., 140
Beka‘, 66
Be- la-qu, 81
Bell, Gertrude L., 109
110, 117
Beni J afna, 48
Bera‘, 41
Berossus, 76, 79, 95
Béth-Anath, 74
Béth-‘ Ani’, 169
Béth-Dagon, 175
Béth-Lehem, 178
Béth-Shemesh, 55, 74,
182
Bezold, C., 174
Bilga-Mash, 89
Bir-Da-ad-da, 47
Biridiya, 129
Birsha‘, 41
Bit-Karkara, 124
Bit-Nin-IB, 74
bit Su-ri-b [‘], hia
tBi-it- ti--Da-gan, 113
Bliss, F. J., 53
Bohl, ES 26, 34, 72
Breasted, J. H., 101,
139 f, 142
Briinnow, R. E., 23
Bu-la-aq-qu, 81
Burchardt, M., 138,
142 f
Byblos, 126 f, passim
Chantre, E., 131
Chedorlaomer, 97
Chiera, E., 36, 61, 80,
87 f, 114, 175, 177
Cernik, 109
Cicero, 52
Condamin, A., 111

?

Cook, G. A., 177

Cook, S. A., 162

Conder, C. R., 44

Corsote, 110

Cowley, A., 65

Craig, J. A., 168

da-ga-ma, 98

Dagan, 175

Damiq-ilishu, 79

Damascus, 42, 119, 122 f

Darmeseq, 42

Da(v) onus, 76, 78

Decapolis, 48

De Goeje, M. J., 28

Deimel, A., 165

Delitzsch, F., 9, 18, 124

Der Aban, 55

Dhaw, 34

Dhii’l Shara, 179

Dhii-SamwA, 34 |

Diarbekr, 97

“D)i-mas-qa, 122

IDumu-Zt, 80, 82 f, 95

Dumu-Z1-Ab-Zu, 83

Dun-gi, 20, 97, 126

4Dun-Gi-ra-kalam-ma,
178

Dir-Igitlim, 112

Dir-Isharlim, 112

Du-’-u-2u, 82

Ka, 175

Ea(En-Ki)-bani(Di),
_ 85

E-Anna, 169
Eannatum, 90

_ Ka-sarri, 176

¢Ha-tabu( Dig), 85
Ebed-Uru ahu, 78, 106
Kber, 37

Ed-Dér, 111
Edoranchus, 76, 78
Ekisigga, 111
Elam, 82
dEl-Amurru
El-data, 72
’El-’Ely6n,
Elephantine, 63
El-Ghor, 121
Eliezer, 62

THE EMPIRE OF THE AMORITES.

El Jezireh, 50
Ellil-bani, 158
El-muti, 90
El-ra-b1-1h, 114
’*El-Shaddai, 167
E-lu, 80
El-Or, 71, 106
4En-Amas, 25
E'n-bi-A8-tar, 172
IE n-Din-tir™, 25
en-gi-du, 85
thin-ki-du, 85 f
4Hin-lal, 25, 176
Enlil-bani, 79
4Hn-lil-labira, 158
Enmastu, 73
En-Me-Dur-An-K1, 77
Ein-Me-ir-Kar, 69, 80,
82
EnuraSsat, 73
En-Ur-ta, 74
E-ta-na, 80, 81, 95
BH-ud-gal-gal, 125
Eusebius, 76, 79, 90
Faluja, 81
Fuye, Allotte de la, 74
Gardiner, 65
Gari, 121
Galu-4Amar-Dingir, 68
dGestin-An-na, 84.
Gezer, 53
Ghassanides, 48
Gimil-A-nim, 169
Gir, 177
Gir-‘ Ashteroth, 178
Gir-Ba‘al, 178
Giri-Dadda, 164
GIR-GIR, 121
IGTR-GIR-u, 177
Gir-sakan, 178
@Gur sa birgt, 177
442, 88
4G8-bil-ga-Mesh, 80, 84
Golénischeff, V.S., 131
Goshen, 43
Gressman, H., 88
Grice, EK. M., 12, 21, 92,
114
Gubin, 97

Gudea, 33, 96 f
Guli-Addi, 54
Gungunu, 93
Gur-raki, 121
Ha-ba-ru, 46
habbatu, 45
Habiri, 48, 44, 45 f
Ha-bi-ir-si, 46
‘Ha-ab-st-im, 182
Habur-ibal-Bugash,
112
Hadad, 165
Hadad-Rimmon, 164
Hadhramotians, 33, 34
Hagar, 118
Hagir, 34
Halabu, 124, 125
Haleb, 124
Halevy, J., 23
Halis, 115
Hallapu, 124
Halma, 82, 95
Halman, 124
Hilprecht, H. V., 93
Hammurabi, 97, 113 f
Hammurabih, 118
ha’amo6ri, 66
hamustum, 131, 183
Hani, 98 f, 178
Harran, 119 f
Hat-hor, 140
Ha-at-tu-Shar, 176
Haupt, P., 67
Ha-za-el, 47
Hebron, 47
Hermitage, 123 -
Hobab, 88
Holma, H., 69
Hommel, F., 31, 33, 36
39, 73, 77, 114, 121,
167, 186
Hrozny, F., 171
Humba, 87
Hu-um-ba-ba, 87, 95
Humurtu, 57, 126
Huntington, E., 3
Huwal, 34
Hu-wa-wa, 86 ff

?

Hu-un-m-m, 105, 128

INDEX.

Iarmuti, 95

Tbi-Sin, 97, 134

Ibn Doraid, 39

*Tbri, 45

Idin-4RI, 170

[Id ]-sa-A-na, 169

Ikunum, 133 f

wane hia-ab-b1-ri, 45

am SA-GAS, 45

Il-Ashirta, 167

Il-Ba’, 73, 186

il-ba-ba, 186

Il Fakhr, 34

47|-Ha-al-la-bu, 125, 166

Ilt-i-ma-* W e-tr, 69

I-li-Me-ir, 69

Il-ka-Me-ir, 69

Il-Kanshan, 167

Imagqqah, 34

Il-Tammesh, 167

Il-Tehri, 167

Il-Téri, 167

d i-lu-me-ir] YM, 70, 167

Ilu-shuma, 156

Tlu-We-ir, 166

Im-me-ir-1-la, 78

4—M-ra, 70

Irzi, 109

‘Ishara, 109, 111

Isharlim, 116

Isbi-Urra, 90, 106, 107

ishi, 40

Ishki-Bal, 94

Ishkun-Nergal, 21

T-Su-il, 90

Isidore of Charax, 81,
108

Islam, 48

Is-re-il, 90

I-tur-Me-wr, 69, 112, 164

I-z1-Na-bu-u, 181

Jacob-hur, 139

Jadah-halum, 39

Jadah-ilu, 39

Ja-ah- - - -, 104, 105

Jahweh-Sabaoth, 164

Jahweh-Shalom, 164

Ja-[ku]-un-A-Sa-ru-um,
171

189

Ja-a-ma, 54
Ja’mu-Dagan, 112
Ja-ri-ib-4Adad, 115
Jaskur-ilu, 40
Ja-as-ma-’-4Da-gan,
26, 115
Jasmah-el, 40
Jastrow, Marcus, 70
Jastrow, M., Jr., 80,
85, 88, 89, 132, 173,
176
Ja-wi(mz) -ba-an-da, 82
Jensen, P., 9, 131
Jeremias, A., 77
Johns, C. H. W., 118,
RSE age oo
Joktan, 37
Josephus, 66, 1388
Ka-lu-mu-un, 80
Kara Eyuk, 131
Karnak, 59
Ka(?)-sha-Ashir, 158
Kashtiliashu, 112
Khnum-hotep, 144
Kt-en-gi(r)-raé(DU),122
Kikia, 156, 158
Kikkinu, 113
Ki-Mash*, 37, passim
King, L. W., 30, 33, 40,
86, 91, 96, 157 f
Kin-gin, 122
K1-sa-ah-bu-ut, 115
Kittel, R., 77
Knudtzon, J. A., 121
Kraeling, E. G. H., 120
Krausz, J., 167
Kudur-Nahundi, 99
kur-amur, 67
La-ab-a-an, 159
Lahmu, 178
LAL-tir-alim-ma, 77
Langdon, S. H., 67, 73,
85, 183, 186
Larsa Dynasty, 91
Libit-Ishtar, 91
lummu, 131, 133
Luckenbill, D. D., 29,
42, 73, 114, 157, 159,
185 f

190

Lugal-Ban-Da, 82
Lugal-zaggisi, 20, 90
Lulubu, 126
Luschan, F.. von, 60
Lutz, H. F., 12, 41, 140,
167
Macalister, R. A.S.,
30, 54
Mackenzie, 53, 55
Madga, 97
Magan, 33
Malgu, 105, 119
Malik, 164
Manetho, 188
Manishtusu, 90
Mannu-dannu, 33
Mar, 69
Maratha, 103
Marathias, 72, 103
Mar-barak, 69
Mar-bi’-da, 69
Mardakos, 35
Mardokentas, 35
Marduk, 179
Mari, 60, passim
Mar-jehar, 69
Mar-la-rom-me, 69
Ma-ri-la-rim, 69
Ma-ri-id-di, 69
Masca, 110
mamar-rit, 67
Mar-samak, 69
Mar-se-te-’, 69
Mar (TUR)-su-ri, 69
Mar-sam-si, 69
4M ar-tu-ba-an-da, 82
Mash, 179
ma-a-su, 73
Mash-mannah, 179
Mas-Sal-Nun-na, 80
Mashtu, 179
Mashu, 37
ma-asu, 73
Maynard, J. A., 73
Medinet, 59
Megal-Uru, 78, 106
Megiddo, 55
Me-is-tu, 124
Melubha, 97

Mer-ka-gi-na, 69
d me-ir-me-riT M{t+-TM
Meissner, B., 66, 91
Meri-ba‘ al, 70
Merneptah, 149
Mer, Mir, 69
Merra, 107
Meyer, E., 23, 28, 60,
79, 1382, 135
dMes, 180
Mes-An-N1-Pad-da, 80
Meshegq, 123
Mes-Ki-Ag-Nun-na, 80
Mes-ki-in-ga-se-tr, 80
Mes-Lam-Ta-e, 106, 180
Mes-Za-Mug(?), 80
Mil-ki-U-ri, 71
Mil-ku-ru, 71
Minaeans, 33, 34
Mir-Dadu, 90
Mish-‘am, 179
Montgomery, J. A., 11,
169

Mordecai, 10
Morgan, J. P., Library
of, 81, 113
Moriah, 68, 153
Motab-Natiyan, 34
Miller, W. M., 189 ff,
170, 172, 182, 185
Mur, 69
Murashi, 44
Mur-ra, 70
Mursil, 129
d mu-ri(n) TM, 70
4Mu-u-ru-u, T0
Musri, 43
Na-ba-a-a-te, 47
Nabataean, 47
Na-bat-at, 47
Nablus, 55
Nabi, 180
Nabit-rimannu, 72
Nakarum, 39
Nannar-Gir-Gal, 164
Naram-Sin, 33
Nashhu, 120, 181
Nasr, 34
Naville, M., 45

THE EMPIRE OF THE AMORITES.

Nedyt, 140

Nergal, 181

Nergal-gar-ra, 21

Ne-Uru-Gal, 25:1

Niebuhr, Prof., 121

Nikkal, 141

Nimrod, 156

4Nin-a-dam-azag-ga,
25:1

INin-Gal, 25 :1

INin-Gir-Su, 25

INin-Gis-Z1-Da, 84

Nin-gu-edin-na, 176

Nin-har-sag, 176

4Nin-IB, 25

IN in-t91-21-bar-ra, 25

d uNIN-[Mmeru Rt 70

INin-Mar*,

Nin-Numusda, 73

Nin-Sun, 84

dnNin-'Ur, 71

Ninurtu, 73

INin-uru (PIN) ,74

Ninurut, 73

Nisaba, 118

Niswar, 34

Norris, F. A., 31

Nu-bdn-da, 82

Nukara, 141

Og, 100

Olmstead, A. T., 12, 79,
81, 96, 103, 109, 115

On-Heliopolis, 139

Ophel, 55

Orion, 140

Osiris, 140

Otiartes, 77, 78

Pa-gi-rum, 118

Pallacopas, 81

Paton, L. B., 28, 36, 42,
162, 165,174 f

Pekah, 122

Peleg, 37, 81

Pepi I, 148

Peters, J. P., 109, 117

Petra, 27, 47

Petrie, F'., 59, 65, 139

Phaliga, 81

Pi-la-qu, 81

P1-li-qam, 80, 81
Pilter, W. T., 36, 40, 41
Pinches, T. G., 131
Pir’-Amurru, 81
Pir’-Mer, 69
Pir’-Oru, 69
Pi-sa-A-na, 169
Plutarch, 140
Poebel, A., 35, 77, 80,
83, 85, 88, 96, 107
Pognon, H., 38, 73
Prince, J. D., 22, 114
Put-Ahi, 1380
gam, —
Quainan, 34
Qatabanians, 33, 34
Qedem, 79, 148
Qedesh,141
-qinnatate, 174
Radau, H., 167
Ra-’-a-b1-el, 40
Raibum, 40
Ramman, 34, 165
Ramsay, Sir Wm. M.,
131
Ramses IT, 180, 149
Ramses ITT, 103, 150
Ranke, H., 36, 40, 91,
114 f
Rassam, 116
Rawlinson, Sir H., 103
Rennell, 109
Resheph, 141, 182
Retenu, 141
Rezin, 122
Rim-Sin, 94
Rogers, R. W., 156
Sabaea-Himyarites, 33
Sahure, 142
Sak-kan, 178
Samaria, 55
Sami‘, 34
Samsu-iluna, 97
Sargon, 90, 96
Sartu, 83
Sayce, A. H., 9, 28, 38,
74,96, 123,131,135
Scheil, V., 90, 107, 119,
131

INDEX.

Schnable, P., 79
Schoff, W. H., 117
Schrader, E., 28
Sebastiyah, 55
Sebek-khu, 144
Sellin, E., 54
Semachoros, 84
Semak-Jau, 84.
Semak-Ur, 84
Serabit el Khadim, 65
Sesostris I, 143
Sesostris ITI, 144
Seti I, 129, 148
Shalim-ahu, 158
Shalman, 141, 182
Sa Mash, 179
Shamash, 72, 182
Shamshi-Adad IIT, 159
Shamash-résh-usur,
106, 118, 119
Samas-wedum-usur, 36
Shara, 183
48har-bdn-da, 80, 82,
95, 124
Shar-Girru, 164, 181
qSar-gir-ra Mar*, 177
Sar-Gir-ra-Su*, 177
Shar-Maradda, 164
Sha-a-ru, 184
4Sar-ra-pu, 177
Shar-Urra, 106
Sarru-kénu, 133
Sharuhen, 144
Shibaém, 34
Shimshé6n, 140, 182
Shinab, 40
Se-ir-id-ri, 184.
Shem, 37
Shema, 55
Ser-ila-a-a, 184
Sheshonk, 150, 169
Shubaru, 83
Shubbiluliuma, 127 f
Shuwari, 83
Sihon, 100
Simanu, 72
Simuru, 126
Sin, 34
Sim-abu, 41

191

Sinai, 34
Sin-iqisham, 115
Sinuhe, 56, 79, 148
4Sir-du, 83
Sistmordakos, 35
Snefru, 142
Solomon, 100 f
Sprenger, 28
Steuernagel, 121
Stratonike, 88
Streck, M., 181
St. Stephen, 107
Su-abu, 156
Suhi, 115, 117 ff
sumu, 40
Su-mu-qa-an, 178
Sutii, 47
Syneellus, 35
Su-ba-an-du (dt), 82
48UR, 68
Syneellus, 76
Tabba-edt, 36
Tabba-wedi, 36
Ta’lab, 34
Tallqvist, K., 181,
tamertu, 67
Ta-mu-zu, 82
Ta‘anach, 54, 62, 63
Tell el-Hesy, 53
Tell Mutesellim, 55
Teshub, 18, 166
Thamméza, 82
Thilutha, 119
Thureau-Dangin, F.,
73, 92, 96, 114, 131,
133
Thutmose I, 127, 145
Thutmose IT, 145 f
Thutmose ITT, 48, 53,
56, 100, 145 f
Thutmose IV, 147
Tiamat, 139
Tidnum, 82, 121, 124
Tiglath-pileser I, 119,
160
Tinkarum, 39
Tirga, 111, 112, 118
Tofteen, O. A., 66, 161
Torrey, C. C., 12

192

Tukulti-Inurta, 159

Tukults-Me-w, 69, 116

Tu-l-id-4Sams1 (81),
164, 183

Tutul, 106, 119

U-a-a-te-’, 47

Ubar-Tutu, T7

umméanu, TT

4Umun-bad-urudu-
nagar-ki, 25:1

Uni, 148

Unegnad, A., 41, 91

Ur of the Chaldees, 102

u-ra-su, 13

Urbillu, 126

Uri, 108

’Oria, 70, 73, 168

UR-Inurta, 91, 93

U-ri-im-me-1, 71

a7 r1(URU ) -wa-da, 78

Uri-wada, 72

Ur-Nina, 20

Ur-ra-gal, 71

Urra-imitti, 90, 106

Ur-ru-da
Ur-4Sar-banda, 132, 134
’Urta, 70, 73
Uru-Mash, 164
Uru-mush, 90
U-ru-sa-lim, 71, 74
d urumUry(PIN ), 74
durumU rym, T1
Uryerumea Yas, 71
U-ru-mil-ki, 71
Uru"*"-Tab, 71
1Ur--Zababa, 186
Ushpia, 156, 158
Warad-4We-ir, 69
Ward, W. H., 86 f, 133
Weber, O., 121
Wedum-lhblut, 36
qW e-tr-a-bu-su, 69
Weissbach, F'. H., 106
Wilderness of Sin, 35
Winckler, H., 9, 28,
39, 42, 183, 185 f
Wright, W., 9, 28
Xenophon, 110

THE EMPIRE OF THE AMORITES.

Xisuthrus, 77, 78

Yakut, 117

Yemen, 48

Yuzgat, 1385

Za-ba-ba, 185

Za-ga-ga, 185

Zakir, 69

Zakku-Igitlim, 113

Zakku-Isharlim, 113

Za-mal-mal, 185

Zanzum, 40

Zebib, 185

4Z% e-ur-tu, 83

Zi-i[m...], 104, 105, 111

Zimmern, H., 9, 22, 44,
(ius

zumrt, 40

Zimri-Hanata, 116

Zoan, 45

Zu-ga-gi-ib, 80

Zur, 34

...um-Shamash, 60, 89,
105

ITHSONIAN INSTITUTION LIBR

iin

088 01745 3440

3